-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2018, 07:49:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Pet Sounds and Race
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Pet Sounds and Race  (Read 22083 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7983



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 28, 2016, 10:13:44 AM »

That popmatters guy was a nutcase.... Roll Eyes
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8251


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2016, 10:22:08 AM »

He either couldn't or simply didn't wish to defend the words he wrote and which Pop Matters published. That said it all in that case. I'd offer the same thing to this author - state your hypothesis and back it up with a summary in one or two sentences. As my English teachers used to say, give us the "main idea" of the piece. If he can't do that, it holds no water with me.
Logged

“Some people think you have to knock somebody down in order to build yourself up, I don’t look at it that way. To the mentality that likes to disparage other people, I say perhaps you should get a life. It’s just wrong thinking in my opinion and I don’t mind saying that.” - Mike Love

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 7247


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 28, 2016, 10:44:36 AM »

I recall watching a documentary about an all black heavy metal (or was it punk?) band from the 70s. They were quite good, but they never got pushed because they 'weren't supposed to do that kind of music' apparently. Perhaps there is a double standard because there seem to always be white people doing rap, r&b, etc, but you don't see many all black rock bands very much at all. My guess is many have tried but record labels wouldn't sign them.

There certainly is such a thing as racism. We need to distinguish between one bad article and reality in the world, no question about that. I think decisions like you mention above have a lot to do with marketing, more than overt and intentional racism. It would not surprise me to see label execs considering a hard rock band of black musicians and thinking, "how do I market this? Black people don't listen to this..." We see stories about similar questions in mainstream television: execs fearing more than one black character for fear of it being seen as a "black show" and losing white viewers.

Vernon Reid of Living Colour used to talk about the challenges they faced as an all-black rock band in the '80s. A lot of it was about the marketing, not the actual audiences or reception of the music.

Expectations and context do play into a lot of these decisions, and the results can be racist even if the incidents aren't intentionally and overtly racist.

But again, this article doesn't present much (if any) actually compelling evidence or arguments.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the professor
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: September 28, 2016, 11:18:04 AM »

Friends, welcome to the professor's world: please don't worry yourselves about looking for substance. In the modern academy, critical analysis has been replaced with the simple binary matrices of race, class and gender. Simply to assert the existence of one matrix in any given context (here re: Pet Sounds) is, in itself, the entirety of the critical argument.  I get paid for combating this "Chinese cultural revolution" type of totalitarian thinking in real life, so pardon me if I say no more about it here, where I draw no pay. 


He either couldn't or simply didn't wish to defend the words he wrote and which Pop Matters published. That said it all in that case. I'd offer the same thing to this author - state your hypothesis and back it up with a summary in one or two sentences. As my English teachers used to say, give us the "main idea" of the piece. If he can't do that, it holds no water with me.
Logged
JK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4554


Maybe I put too much faith in atmosphere


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: September 28, 2016, 01:12:19 PM »

Friends, welcome to the professor's world: please don't worry yourselves about looking for substance. In the modern academy, critical analysis has been replaced with the simple binary matrices of race, class and gender. Simply to assert the existence of one matrix in any given context (here re: Pet Sounds) is, in itself, the entirety of the critical argument.  I get paid for combating this "Chinese cultural revolution" type of totalitarian thinking in real life, so pardon me if I say no more about it here, where I draw no pay. 

Believe me, professor, you are pardoned in full. LOL
Logged

Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2017


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2016, 02:15:19 PM »

I don’t have that much of a problem with this article and I think a lot of the reaction is defensive, not just against the article but against cultural trends that make people uncomfortable. The article is actually not saying much that’s new or revelatory or even accusatory. It’s just saying it in terms that push buttons.

It seems to me to basically positing that:

-there is a “white” culture based in the suburbs and a “black” culture based in the cities. This is arguable. One could, of course, argue that suburban vs. urban is a class difference more than a race difference, but certainly in the ‘50s and ‘60s, there were a lot of suburban places that actively prevented black home owners and certainly even now there’s a racial imbalance between suburbs and cities, so while one may reasonably disagree that race is the key factor, the assertion isn’t outlandish.

-that “rock and roll” was essentially an urban and black genre from the mid-50s until the early 60s. I’d say, again, that this is arguable – counter-examples are easy to find and what “rock and roll” means is itself arguable, but some of the counter-examples put forth already actually support this assertion. Stax and Motown’s heydays were within the period cited. If you look at the charts in the early 60s vs the late 60s, I think you’ll see that the racial balance shifted toward white. I don’t know this, but I’m willing to hypothesize that the suburban/urban market ratio also grew significantly during that period.

-that there was appropriation of black artists' work by white artists. This is certainly true. In the early ‘60s many white artists, Pat Boone is a prime example, but you can find many instances, covered songs by black artists and made substantially more income off of those songs. If you look at this from a corporate perspective, rather than an artist perspective, you have big corporations, run at that time pretty much exclusively by white men, trolling the independent black labels for songs, rerecording them with white artists, and making a bundle. Could they have succeeded by recording more black artists at the big labels and distributing those? I don’t know. The market plays into this. But whether it was driven by racial preferences in the market or at the corporations does not erase the fact that there were racial factors in play.

-that the Beach Boys were among the early white artists to make original rock and roll that was primarily suburban in marketing, in lyrics, in message. Hard to argue.

-that in the latter ‘60s, there was an intellectualization of rock and roll and this is what transformed rock and roll into rock. This is where it gets really fuzzy to me and I think the article collapses. I agree that there was an intellectualization of some popular music that wasn’t intellectualized before. Previously only folk was really intellectual, now some part of ‘rock’ was, but the differentiation between ‘rock and roll’ and ‘rock’ is fuzzy enough. That ‘rock’ = intellectualized ‘rock and roll’ is obscure.

-that the intellectualization was a major factor in the separation of black artists from rock. Again, we’re in fuzzy territory. I agree that, since the late 60s, early 70s, what has been considered “rock” has been mainly the work of white artists. In the early 60s, rock and roll was a racially mixed genre with black artists being predominant. By the early 70s, most ‘rock’ is by white artists and most black artists’ music is being labeled ‘soul,’ ‘r&b,’ etc. While there are, of course, counter-examples, the most popular genre of music went from basically integrated but led by black artists to basically segregated and led by white artists. So the segregation is real. That it's due to intellectualization is dubious.

-That Pet Sounds was a part of the process of intellectualizing rock and thus a part of the process of segregating rock. I’ve already posited that I think the intellectualizing of part of rock has a tenuous relationship to the segregation, but I’ll say further that I think it’s unclear that Pet Sounds is a rock record.

So, I don’t agree with the article’s conclusions, but I don’t think a lot of the comments here are even responsive to the article’s arguments.

Also, the article in no way argues that the Beach Boys were, themselves, racist.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 06:44:31 PM by Emily » Logged
joshferrell
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1628



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2016, 02:41:52 PM »

I don't think there is a real Marxist alive.

I am   Grin Wink
Logged
chaki
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 196



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: September 28, 2016, 02:47:14 PM »

Emily is on the money.

There are 2 things that you cannot deny - The Beach Boys are a very "white" band and Pet Sounds is, without a doubt, "white" music made for white people. This is a symptom of the time, place and people involved. Did they create with malice? Of course not. Does this make the music any less wonderful? No. But cultural context is important to place these things in.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2783


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: September 28, 2016, 03:07:56 PM »

The evil of things like "cultural appropriation", like "microagreessions", "intersectionality" and "safe spaces" are concepts propagated by fascists.


No, they're concepts propagated by Marxists.

They most certainly are not. This line of thinking is a consequence of a dedicated propaganda campaign. Please see my own discussion on the topic in this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10569.msg383815.html#msg383815
Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 665


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: September 28, 2016, 03:16:32 PM »

I don’t have that much of a problem with this article and I think a lot of the reaction is defensive, not just against the article but against cultural trends that make people uncomfortable. The article is actually not saying much that’s new or revelatory or even accusatory. It’s just saying it in terms that push buttons.

It seems to me to basically positing that:

-there is a “white” culture based in the suburbs and a “black” culture based in the cities. This is arguable. One could, of course, argue that suburban vs. urban is a class difference more than a race difference, but certainly in the ‘50s and ‘60s, there were a lot of suburban places that actively prevented black home owners and certainly even now there’s a racial imbalance between suburbs and cities, so while one may reasonably disagree that race is the key factor, the assertion isn’t outlandish.

-that “rock and roll” was essentially an urban and black genre from the mid-50s until the early 60s. I’d say, again, that this is arguable – counter-examples are easy to find and what “rock and roll” means is itself arguable, but some of the counter-examples put forth already actually support this assertion. Stax and Motown’s heydays were within the period cited. If you look at the charts in the early 60s vs the late 60s, I think you’ll see that the racial balance shifted toward white. I don’t know this, but I’m willing to hypothesize that the suburban/urban market ratio also grew significantly during that period.

-that there was appropriation of black artist’s work by white artists. This is certainly true. In the early ‘60s many white artists, Pat Boone is a prime example, but you can find many instances, covered songs by black artists and made substantially more income off of those songs. If you look at this from a corporate perspective, rather than an artist perspective, you have big corporations, run at that time pretty much exclusively by white men, trolling the independent black labels for songs, rerecording them with white artists, and making a bundle. Could they have succeeded by recording more black artists at the big labels and distributing those? I don’t know. The market plays into this. But whether it was driven by racial preferences in the market or at the corporations does not erase the fact that there were racial factors in play.

-that the Beach Boys were among the early white artists to make original rock and roll that was primarily suburban in marketing, in lyrics, in message. Hard to argue.

-that in the latter ‘60s, there was an intellectualization of rock and roll and this is what transformed rock and roll into rock. This is where it gets really fuzzy to me and I think the article collapses. I agree that there was an intellectualization of some popular music that wasn’t intellectualized before. Previously only folk was really intellectual, now some part of ‘rock’ was, but the differentiation between ‘rock and roll’ and ‘rock’ is fuzzy enough. That ‘rock’ = intellectualized ‘rock and roll’ is obscure.

-that the intellectualization was a major factor in the separation of black artists from rock. Again, we’re in fuzzy territory. I agree that, since the late 60s, early 70s, what has been considered “rock” has been mainly the work of white artists. In the early 60s, rock and roll was a racially mixed genre with black artists being predominant. By the early 70s, most ‘rock’ is by white artists and most black artists’ music is being labeled ‘soul,’ ‘r&b,’ etc. While there are, of course, counter-examples, the most popular genre of music went from basically integrated but led by black artists to basically segregated and led by white artists.

-That Pet Sounds was a part of the process of intellectualizing rock and thus a part of the process of segregating rock. I’ve already posited that I think the intellectualizing of part of rock has a tenuous relationship to the segregation, but I’ll say further that I think it’s unclear that Pet Sounds is a rock record.

So, I don’t agree with the article’s conclusions, but I don’t think a lot of the comments here are even responsive to the article’s arguments.

Also, the article in no way argues that the Beach Boys were, themselves, racist.



Thanks so much, Emily.  I wouldn't have begun to address all these issues with your clarity, and appreciate what you've said here.  There are certainly some more than shaky premises, and conclusions in the article.  But like you, I don't mind the exploration of this subject.

I truly felt like I knew what Brian's comment about "white spiritual music" meant (although I don't specifically recall it, it was a crucial part of this written submission's premises, it appears) because I heard him talk about his musical influences so often, and he was joyous about them when he spoke. To me, it was respectful of the idea that he wanted to capture the same spiritual power as gospel music with his personal background - "white" suburban America.  

The "white" and "black" references do a disservice to people, as far as I'm concerned - we're all shades of beige-brown), but we're stuck with them for now and there was still a cultural split at that time - far less in the music community.  I saw Brian's work as a healing and integrating element, from my perspective.  From what I could observe of the jazz community people and their opinions, Brian's work was beloved by many.  

Of course Brian's quote was included out of context (and I haven't gone to look it up yet in the book).  I know Brian had enormous respect for his musical influences and I certainly never saw any racist qualities expressed - none.  I agree with you that this was more likely not a comment on the BBs personally and more a commentary on the environment and business that surrounded them.  That argument would have far more validity.  

Whether it will be read that way is another thing.  Like this weird US election, I'm guessing each person will read it in their own little universe and it will fit their own personal experiences and their general narrative.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2017


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: September 28, 2016, 04:21:38 PM »

The evil of things like "cultural appropriation", like "microagreessions", "intersectionality" and "safe spaces" are concepts propagated by fascists.


No, they're concepts propagated by Marxists.

They most certainly are not. This line of thinking is a consequence of a dedicated propaganda campaign. Please see my own discussion on the topic in this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10569.msg383815.html#msg383815
I just think it's a thing to define just about everything as either Marxist or Fascist. It's a way of dismissing rather than engaging.
Also, when someone comes along who demonstrates actual fascist tendencies, it's now easy to dismiss people who point that out as just labeling that person based on the tendency to do so, without engaging.
Logged
thorgil
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


GREAT post, Rab!


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: September 28, 2016, 04:42:36 PM »

Moved to general music discussion.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 02:05:41 AM by thorgil » Logged

DIT, DIT, DIT, HEROES AND VILLAINS...
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: September 28, 2016, 04:52:23 PM »

It's just some young person's MA thesis, guys. Nothing to get worked up about. Three-quarters of the people I know wrote something that looked exactly like this in the last 10 years.

Emily's post above is good, btw.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 04:54:50 PM by maggie » Logged
thorgil
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


GREAT post, Rab!


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: September 28, 2016, 05:07:25 PM »

I don't think there is a real Marxist alive.

I am   Grin Wink

Ahah, nice one. I love the Marx brothers. ALL of them...Cool Guy
Logged

DIT, DIT, DIT, HEROES AND VILLAINS...
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2017


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: September 28, 2016, 05:26:49 PM »



Thanks so much, Emily.  I wouldn't have begun to address all these issues with your clarity, and appreciate what you've said here.  There are certainly some more than shaky premises, and conclusions in the article.  But like you, I don't mind the exploration of this subject.

I truly felt like I knew what Brian's comment about "white spiritual music" meant (although I don't specifically recall it, it was a crucial part of this written submission's premises, it appears) because I heard him talk about his musical influences so often, and he was joyous about them when he spoke. To me, it was respectful of the idea that he wanted to capture the same spiritual power as gospel music with his personal background - "white" suburban America.  

The "white" and "black" references do a disservice to people, as far as I'm concerned - we're all shades of beige-brown), but we're stuck with them for now and there was still a cultural split at that time - far less in the music community.  I saw Brian's work as a healing and integrating element, from my perspective.  From what I could observe of the jazz community people and their opinions, Brian's work was beloved by many.  

Of course Brian's quote was included out of context (and I haven't gone to look it up yet in the book).  I know Brian had enormous respect for his musical influences and I certainly never saw any racist qualities expressed - none.  I agree with you that this was more likely not a comment on the BBs personally and more a commentary on the environment and business that surrounded them.  That argument would have far more validity.  

Whether it will be read that way is another thing.  Like this weird US election, I'm guessing each person will read it in their own little universe and it will fit their own personal experiences and their general narrative.

I agree with everything you say. My guess is that the inclusion of Pet Sounds in this article was just a way to make it relevant enough to popular discussion to get it published. I also I don't think the author was claiming that the quote about "white spiritual music" was racist, so much as an apt description of what Brian Wilson was doing. I think the author agrees with Brian Wilson and is not claiming Brian Wilson was racist for saying so. I think the author used that quote, perhaps incorrectly, to illustrate a general trend of the "whitening" of rock. As I don't really think Pet Sounds is rock, I think it's a bad example. But while Brian Wilson obviously was influenced by many black artists, it's clear the Beach Boys' market was white.

Regarding talking about people in terms of 'black' and 'white' - it's an interesting topic, perhaps for the sandbox if it becomes an active topic. As long as perceived race is a factor in economic or social outcomes or in culture, ignoring race in economic, social or cultural discussions is dishonest. However, if discussing race solidifies it as a factor, discussing it would be counter-productive. It's an interesting thing to think about, to me.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2783


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: September 28, 2016, 06:04:23 PM »

The evil of things like "cultural appropriation", like "microagreessions", "intersectionality" and "safe spaces" are concepts propagated by fascists.


No, they're concepts propagated by Marxists.

They most certainly are not. This line of thinking is a consequence of a dedicated propaganda campaign. Please see my own discussion on the topic in this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10569.msg383815.html#msg383815
I just think it's a thing to define just about everything as either Marxist or Fascist. It's a way of dismissing rather than engaging.
Also, when someone comes along who demonstrates actual fascist tendencies, it's now easy to dismiss people who point that out as just labeling that person based on the tendency to do so, without engaging.

Agreed. Glenn Greenwald has said some interesting things about how Godwin's law is not inherently a bad thing.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8251


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 28, 2016, 06:45:05 PM »

My commentary on the article and the comments on the article:

One needs to be familiar with the actual day-to-day context into which a work of art was introduced and thrived in order to make either a defense of this specific piece, or justify both its hypothesis/premise/conclusion and basic existence. I'm not seeing that in the follow-ups.

If a writer is going to use an album like Pet Sounds to state his premise and attempt to prove that premise, that in itself is absurd.

Some have gone back and tried to place everything surrounding Pet Sounds and Smile into a historical context. Not only the summary textbook style telling of events, but the actual daily/weekly/monthly events that surrounded the creation of these works. Current news, current music, TV, radio, film, advertising, fashion, regional trends (i.e. what made New York different from LA and different from Chicago in Spring 1966, Fall 1966, etc.) If context is key, the music created at a specific time never came from a vacuum, it didn't spring out of nowhere.

What is key in this case, since music is the focus of this article, would be what did the market into which an album like Pet Sounds was entering actually sound like, what did it consist of, and what else was surrounding it?

Why and how did Frank Zappa's debut album come out on Verve in 1966, a jazz label? Why did Jac Holzman, a figure in jazz, sign and release Love and the Doors on Elektra? How did the radio stations which were crucial to spreading this music sound, what did their playlists consist of?

For the radio portion of it, there is no simple answer. Every market from 66-69 had a different "sound" and a different style. Why did Boston top-40 play records which midwest top-40 wouldn't touch, and why did LA radio play what Philly never spun at all, or vice versa?

Someone needs to study those points in order to make such statements as in this article and the commentary following up.

Let's zero in on LA top 40, since it was what Brian Wilson would have been hearing when his work was being created and released. KHJ, KRLA, KBLA...1966 into 67.

Check the playlists, if available listen to the aircheck recordings from LA and the SoCal area. Motown next to soul, well-produced "pop" next to garage rock, Beatles next to Temptations, etc. East coast, West coast, south, etc. Wilson Pickett, Young Rascals, Sinatra (yes, Sinatra), Dionne Warwick, Lesley Gore, Junior Walker, Herb Alpert...

These diverse styles heard on top 40 - which was the market the singles and the album this author is using to postulate his theory - existed in the same music sweeps, in between the commercials and announcements. Listeners wanted it, they tuned in for the music. They heard what they liked, and they bought the 45 for 79 cents or dropped the 3-4 bucks for the LP.

Were there "R&B" stations and formats? Of course, just as there were classical, country, and easy listening MOR formats on the AM dial. But Top 40 was the delivery system for getting the music to the market, i.e. the listeners. Was there funny business going on in the business practices? No one denies it. It is a part of the entertainment business period. To this very minute. That's the reality.

So where is the Pet Sounds album and its singles fitting into this author's ideas on racism? Did he or any commenters ever listen to these broadcasts or scan the weekly surveys from the LA market in 66-67 to see what the actual formats and market he's pinning his theory onto sounded like?

I wasn't going to comment, but when I got caught up on the posts, I saw a disconnect - a wide one in some cases - existing between dissecting the sociology of the topic versus the actual words written by the author and his theories which he postulated on the back of the Pet Sounds album.

The author had a bogus premise, in my opinion, to begin with. He chose a convenient vehicle to carry it, a lightning rod if you will to generate interest 50 years after the fact. His choosing a specific album from a specific year and spinning his theories around it told me all I needed to know. As a clinical/educational research and analysis project, it failed because the premise hinges on a single album within a musical and pop culture context that the author barely if ever dissects or even describes. How was "Sloop John B" existing in the scene it was actually in, via top 40 radio and the kids buying the records, next to the R&B and soul records being played and bought by the same demographic?

It's a faulty premise to begin with. The "main idea" isn't clear. The statement followed by analysis and dissection followed by conclusion or proven hypothesis is scattered all over the sociological spectrum, yet "Pet Sounds" is the headline and assumed main topic of the dissertation. I can only assume that since the album is used as the vehicle to back up the theories offered by the article.

Now we have comments and this piece being shared around - attaching Pet Sounds directly (in the author's case) to existing racism of the mid to late 60's if not pinning future societal issues to this specific album's place within its era and by nature of its very creation.

If people want to really talk about it, I mean *really* talk about these issues and put them into the context of top 40 music trends and demographics of the 60's, ignore this article. It's flawed, faulty, and based on a premise which wouldn't even qualify for the term "threadbare logic".

It felt like something which needed a clickbait headline to generate interest and shares/views, and Pet Sounds happened to come under the microscope. Pop Matters can add this to its previous publication of a reviewer comparing a new Brian Wilson project to wheeling grandpa out for Thanksgiving dinner in a wheelchair.

Shame on them. Don't click on the site, simple solution to that one.

If you're going to discuss the real history and context of the music like Pet Sounds in an intellectual or educational manner, discuss it with some intellectual or educational knowledge of the subject matter and the historical context. Such context would have taken Pet Sounds or any similar album from 1966-67 out of consideration for becoming the basis of such an article.



Logged

“Some people think you have to knock somebody down in order to build yourself up, I don’t look at it that way. To the mentality that likes to disparage other people, I say perhaps you should get a life. It’s just wrong thinking in my opinion and I don’t mind saying that.” - Mike Love

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone
♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10274


🍦🍦 ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 28, 2016, 07:31:50 PM »

Well said Craig.
Logged

RIP Alexa Lestage (8 May 1995- 10 June 2018) .

https://www.gofundme.com/help-support-the-jurkowlaniecs
d@rnomite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2016, 07:59:28 PM »

The author forgot to mention Pet Sounds disappointed on the charts while a guy named Jimi Hendrix was rocketing to stardom and dismissing the beach boys sound.

It's a legitimate point but a horrible example. Early beatles/beach boys stuff? Sure. But an underappreciated album that was more chamber pop than rock and roll anyway? Dont see in any way how it limited black rock and rollers at the time.
Logged
Lee Marshall
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1610



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2016, 08:10:56 PM »

The author forgot to mention Pet Sounds disappointed on the charts while a guy named Jimi Hendrix was rocketing to stardom and dismissing the beach boys sound.

 

Jimi was actually commenting on Dick Dale's sound.  They were friends you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------

To place the Pet Sounds album into a conversation about race is ONLY valid if it is seen as a snap shot of the 'way of life' the artist(s) knew first hand.  Not yet 'worldly' or 'experienced' on matters beyond their own encased reality Pet Sounds is as real as it could get for many middle-class kids trying their hand at maturing in the middle 1960s.  {Note to Mike Love:  We, too, matured along with those responsible for recording this artful time capsule which was so relevant that it still rings true 50 + years later.  So?  Enough about the beach.}
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 08:17:14 PM by Add Some » Logged

"Add Some...Music...To Your Day.  I do.  It's the only way to fly.  Well...what was I gonna put here?  An apple a day keeps the doctor away?  Hum me a few bars."   Lee Marshall [2014]

Donald  TRUMP!  ...  Is TOAST.  "What a disaster."  "Overrated?"... ... ..."BIG LEAGUE."  "Lots of people are saying it"  "I will tell you that."   Collusion, Money Laundering, Treason.   B'Bye Dirty Donnie!!!  Adios!!!  Bon Voyage!!!  Toodles!!!  Move yourself...SPANKY!!!  Jail awaits.  It's NO "Witch Hunt". There IS Collusion...and worse.  The Russian Mafia!!  Conspiracies!!  Fraud!!  This racist is goin' down...and soon.  Good Riddance.  And take the kids.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2017


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: September 28, 2016, 08:30:22 PM »

I agree that Pet Sounds is not a good album to use in the context of the article. I also agree that the article fails in its main thesis. But I think the reaction against the article in this thread is both disproportionate and misguided.  The article really isn't about the Beach Boys or Brian Wilson, or even Pet Sounds. Yes, that was thrown in as click-bait. But the article makes many valid points that are being dismissed for reactionary reasons.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 08:33:19 PM by Emily » Logged
kreen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: September 28, 2016, 08:44:42 PM »

Get that identity politics, SJW nonsense off this board. Bad enough that it's polluted whole corners of the Internet...
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2017


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2016, 09:21:49 PM »

Get that identity politics, SJW nonsense off this board. Bad enough that it's polluted whole corners of the Internet...
Perfect illustration.
Logged
♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10274


🍦🍦 ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2016, 09:22:12 PM »

SJW nonsense? Ok...here's the thing..."Social justice warrior"is  pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views; including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, and identity politics. I happen to be a VERY strong supporter of equality and civil rights. I don't agree with this article at all for the reasons listed by numerous people here, but care to explain a bit? Not flaming you or anything, I just read so many complaints about "SJWs" and for the life of me I can't understand what's bad about it. I guess I'm asking more for an explanation so I will understand! I never heard of the term until recently, so that's why I'm asking.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 09:25:17 PM by ♩♬ Billy C ♯♫♩ » Logged

RIP Alexa Lestage (8 May 1995- 10 June 2018) .

https://www.gofundme.com/help-support-the-jurkowlaniecs
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 2001


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2016, 09:27:29 PM »

"white spiritual sound" - the symphony to God was not going to be based on black gospel, but rather an extension of the sound the Beach Boys had already been doing, a multi-part harmony with jazz influences (Four Freshmen).  There was a "white gospel" sound (Elvis Presley grew up in that environment and recorded "white gospel") which was very different from "black gospel."

And didn't white spiritual sound refer to Smile, not Pet Sounds?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.203 seconds with 21 queries.