Talk:Pet Sounds/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox genre overload

I've already stated my thoughts on the infobox here, but here it goes again:

(numbers denote refs)

• (5+) Progressive pop If someone called the Dead Kennedys the "most hardcore punk band ever", we would not be getting into semantics about "relative adjectives". Ideally, "progressive pop" would be the only thing I'd put in the infobox. We have the most sources for it than any other genre. The album may have even coined the term. What difference does it make if A&R people made it up? That doesn't automatically negate Wilson's use of ♭sus4/6 chords in a pop song with harpsichords, sleigh bells, a contrapuntal vocal break, and perpetual rounds. That is the definition of progressive music.

Hey User:Ilovetopaint, I don't have a major problem with "prog pop", but here's 2 things to complicate it anyway: the second part of this argument is simply POV fluff...".it has lots of classical elements, it must be progressive! [but not baroque??]" brings us back to the real question here: is prog rock/pop a defined GENRE (classically influenced, orchestral rock/pop), or an adjective (forward thinkin, in which case let me offer my POV: using classical instrumentation as a signifier of "progress" seems incredibly regressive to me)? If it's a marketing term, it's doubly dubious—that it fits with your angle doesn't mean it reflects any sort of critical consensus.

Second: If I called the Barney theme song "I Love You, You Love Me" "the most progressive song on the Barney soundtrack," I'm not sure you'd be lining up to include it on the progressive music page, would you? One could hypothetically argue (bear with me) that pop music in the 60s wasn't progressive at all (too hung up on trad European romantic and white musical cliches, say), and that therefore 1966's "most progressive pop album ever" is nonetheless not "progressive pop" at all....just most progressive among its surrounding, net-unprogressive company. The difference in usage seems pretty clear to me, especially given the fact that "progressive music" was given a very specific and particular definition in the years following that claim.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The "POV fluff" is just to explain why the addition should not be considered outlandish or controversial. We could not afford the same degree of logic for "folk rock", much less "progressive" in the case of "I Love You, You Love Me". Genres are like that - as editors, we sometimes have to draw lines. We could put "emo" in the infobox, after all, there's at least 2 refs for it, but nobody will take the rest of the article seriously once they see it. Your comments on the nature of Pet Sounds progressiveness are interesting, but I'm not sure if you understand what people really mean by the term "progressive". It's not necessarily synonymous with "innovative" (the article Progressive music was my best try at addressing the issue). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• (3) Psychedelic rock I get that this doesn't make sense musically, but I don't think it's a big deal. Pet Sounds is a "rock" album that's (slightly) "psychedelic".

actually, given that "psychedelic pop" also has sufficient sources, I don't get how "psych rock" makes any sense instead....IMO there's nothing "rock" about this album at all, guitars and strong rock backbeats and other rock signifiers play a ludicrously small roll, it's all hyper-melodic, sonically light, orchestral. If we're gonna excercise some editor discretion and pick one, why pick the less logical one? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no musical logic behind it, it's just that the Beach Boys historically hold the reputation of being a rock band more than a pop band, a la the Beatles. In that way, they're more relevant to Psychedelic rock than Psychedelic pop. I don't think it matters either way - psyche-pop, psyche-rock, we can go with either one.

"The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds album, released 50 years ago this month, ignited a psychedelic pop revolution"

Alright, cool. Not sure it's true that BB are considered "rock" more than "pop," but nonetheless my vote goes to psychedelic pop. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• (3) Art rock Ditto, doesn't make sense musically, but it's a "rock" album that's "arty". The term doesn't appear to really mean anything anyway.
• (4) Psychedelic pop Another one I'm not really sure on - same reasons.
• (4) Chamber pop Don't agree with this one, but it's better than "baroque pop".
• (3) Baroque pop Meaningless and superfluous; applies to 2 or 3 tracks at best. 90% of the time anybody writes "baroque pop", what they really mean is "orchestral pop" or "chamber pop". I wouldn't describe the album as any of these things, but if I have to go with one, "chamber pop" would be the best option, since it basically invented that genre as well.

This I simply find incredibly puzzling.... "applies to 2 or 3 tracks at best"? The whole damn album consists of ornate, sweeping, delicate orchestral backing (do you have a particularly narrow definition of b-pop?). The AllMusic definition ("Layered harmonies, strings, and horns are all hallmarks of baroque pop, as is the music's dramatic intensity") literally invokes the mid-60s Beach Boys in its first sentence, as do plenty pieces that mention their/Wilson's move to or categorization as baroque pop that don't necessarily mention Pet Sounds specifically (i mean, what Beach Boys music do you think these sources are refering to???) A quick google should verify this, I saw at least 3 or 4 that I couldn't use because they didn't mention the album specifically but were clearly referring to Brian's shift from surf rock to PS. This album is the definition of "baroque pop" as far as I'm concerned, and the sources don't support this any less strongly than they do your dubious "prog pop" fixation here. For more informal evidence that you're in the minority here, check out the genre tags voted on by hundreds of people at RateYourMusic.

Also, an album like Odessey and Oracle is tagged as both baroque pop and chamber pop here, and it seems perfectly appropriate to me, I don't see a problem with including both. (At least 5 or 6 individual tracks here have been tagged ch-pop.) gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Baroque pop" has had notoriously troubled usage over the last 15 or so years. Pet Sounds is orchestral and ornate, but it's not always explicitly baroque. So why does it get labelled "baroque" so often? Because when people think of Pet Sounds and "orchestral"-type descriptors, they think "Oh, 'God Only Knows', right, I guess it is baroque pop." No further thought taken. If you study the rest of the album, you'll find that "Believe", "Today", "Don't Talk", and "Waiting" are the only songs with sections that come close to a vague baroque style (in my opinion).

If you want to know what true baroque pop/rock sounds like, which is appropriating the feeling of say, the music of Bach or Handel, then listen to "Different Drum", "Sunday Will Never Be The Same", and "Beechwood Park" - all blatant imitations of "Walk Away Renée". The style is completely different from "That's Not Me", "Caroline, No", "Wouldn't It Be Nice", "I Know There's an Answer", etc.. If "Pet Sounds" or "Let's Go Away" were recorded by anybody else, it would be rightfully dubbed "lounge" or "easy-listening". Wilson was going for "Theme from a Summer Place", not "Ode to Joy". If the Beach Boys recorded the former instead of Percy Faith, no doubt everyone would be lauding Wilson's "ornate, baroque pop orchestration".

It's kind of like somebody calling Sgt. Pepper "progressive rock" - they're obviously thinking of "A Day in the Life" and no other tracks. Burt Bacharach and Phil Spector are often tagged with "baroque pop" too. The suggestion is insane; they never recorded such a song (as far as I know). "Baroque pop" has become a reductive buzzword for anything with a string section. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I suggested, your definition of "baroque pop" is much narrower than the consensus definition, which basically seems to be "pop music that is classically influenced and baroque [that's an adjective, by the way. Something can be "baroque" i.e. ornate without having to invoke Bach for god's sake! Or simply use baroque instruments like harpsichords]. If "baroque pop" has indeed become a reductive buzzword, then, well....that's it's usage (I mean, Lana Del Rey is regularly referred to as "baroque pop" by modern critics, and she sure as hell isn't ripping Bach. Just accept that term is looser than you want it to be!), not sure why you're trying to go against the tide. Several sources explicitly align Wilson/BB/PS with the tag in far clearer terms than "progressive pop," that seems like the end of it in my book. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• (2) Avant-pop I'm not sure this is warranted. It's a strange term that seems to imply that Pet Sounds is "avant-garde", which is not ludicrous in the context of 1966, but...

I don't care about this either.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources suggest that Pet Sounds is widely considered any one of these genres -- except for progressive pop and psychedelic rock.

If everybody hates the current selection so much, then here's a compromise I can go with: Rock, pop, psychedelic, progressive. If we can't even agree that Pet Sounds is psychedelic or progressive - despite the tons of sources describing it as such - then I guess Rock, pop would be the only option left. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a fan of this, the only thing you've gotten rid of are the terms I suggested. Among other things we have 4 or 5 combined sources (more than for any other genre tag) calling the record the arguably synonymous terms "baroque pop" and "chamber pop" (I don't actually think they're synonymous but they clearly refer to basically the same elements) and you're inexplicably excluding both yet including the dubious (marketing?) term "progressive music." And including "psychedelic" over "baroque" just seems ludicrous to me. Bottom line, all the terms I included have multiple sources supporting them, not sure why we need to restrict it at all (Sgt. Pepper has more genres in the info box!).

IMO whatever people think about Pet Sounds being "baroque" or "orchestral" is points toward it being "progressive". It combines classical tropes with pop/rock music - that is the kind of thing so-called "progressive" (prog-rock) music does.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Again: "Pet Sounds being "baroque" or "orchestral" is points toward it being "progressive"'...' actually this serves as a better argument for "baroque" or "chamber pop" than "progressive"—"pop music that is baroque, orchestral, or classically-influenced" is far closer to the prevailing definitions of "baroque pop" and "chamber pop" than "progressive pop" (unless you're suddenly suggesting the definition of prog pop simply is "classically-influenced orchestral pop," which would therefore negate your attempted appropriation of the general/adjectival use of "progressive" above (i.e. "the most progressive pop album" bits). You have to pick one angle: either progressive means "forward thinking and innovative" or "baroque", not whichever's convenient. I think it's the former, and I'm willing to support it on those grounds if you'll acknowledge "baroque" as its own valid tag gentlecollapse6 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that Pet Sounds does not draw solely from classical music, it's a mishmash of Wall of Sound~Tin Pan Alley pop with classical, folk, jazz, and miscellaneous non-Western tinges. The reason why people called all this stuff "progressive" is not because it was "forward-thinking" (that's not what "progressive music" is!) it's because the confluence of styles was extraordinary in the context of "pop music". Let me refer you to Allan Moore:

Up until the mid 1960s, individual idiolects always operated within particular styles. What was so revolutionary about this post-hippie music that came to be called 'progressive' (originally 'progressive pop'—only later 'progressive rock') was that musicians acquired the facility to move between styles—the umbilical link between idiolect and style had been broken.

Another relevant quote from Observer:

That’s the genius of arranging: Meaning arrives from context. Or more importantly, mood. The distinction is important, for although Mr. Wilson has long been coronated by the rock orthodoxy-and the Beach Boys now make their living regurgitating paeans to rock ‘n’ roll, summertime, the bombing of Iraq, etc.-you can’t really call Pet Sounds a rock album. This, along with its quality, created its special place in rock history; there was no category for its fans to place it in.

And let's not forget...

"Progressive rock," "classical rock," "art rock," "symphonic rock"—these labels hve been used over the last twenty-five years by various authors to designate a style of popular music developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, primarily by British rock musician ... [who] attempted to blend late-'60s and early-'70s rock and pop with elements drawn from the Western art-music tradition.

I can't go with "baroque"/"orchestral"/"chamber" when "progressive" covers just about the same ground, not to mention it figures much more prominently in the article, which is more important to WP:NPOV. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

yeah none of that has convinced me—you're trying to make "progressive" a stand in for anything not overtly genre-purist. The fact is, the whole record is recorded with string orchestras playing harpsichords and French horns etc, and it doesn't jump around stylistically like a Sgt. Pepper—it's quite unified sonically behind a sound that is completely synonymous with "baroque" or "chamber", as several sources attest, rather than the far more general "progressive." gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the genre-overload problem is more obvious in the main text. There are obviously so many opinions, and if you keep searching you'll pick up one or two more per month, I imagine. Do we have to hear from all those people? We should be sticking with the best sources since there's so many to choose from; if we lose one of those seven genres in the process, does it really matter?

Looking in Edmonson 2013 (p. 1267), historian Susie Skarl is described as "a lifelong popular music enthusiast … associate professor and urban affairs librarian at the University of Nevada"; she's also "chair of the biographies section of the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association". Brooklyn Vegan is a music blog. The Winnipeg Sun is a tabloid newspaper. Goldmine is a decent music mag, but Journal Sentinel, in this context? And to use Lowe's book on Frank Zappa as a source for the genre(s) of a Beach Boys album also seems unnecessary. I'd ditch everything bar DeRogatis, Goldmine, perhaps Phoenix New Times, Paste, Billboard, AllMusic, Stereogum, Jones, Leaf, AP (or is it A.V. Club per the link?), A.V. Club (or Huff Post, as linked?), Carlin, and Grimstad/Brooklyn Rail. That's still a hell of a long list, and it will cut down on the amount of text (i.e. fewer names) needed under Music and lyrics. It may not lessen the number of genres appearing in the infobox but if the main text is going to focus on so many opinions and come up with so many options, it seems the infobox needs to reflect that. That's the problem with musical genres, they're so subjective – and the problem's exacerbated the further you cast your net, particularly into territory where someone's just not qualified to comment. I do agree with Gentlecollapse6's comment "more sources for psychedelic pop, which seems IMO to fit much better than "rock" (can't see how this is a rock album in anything but the loosest way)", but that's just my opinion. JG66 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2017 (

Another ancillary issue you've touched upon: the "genre tagging" section of the music section is just completely unnecessary and messy, it only serves the purpose of justifying the infobox, and we could include those in a note or something.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do think the genres need discussing in the text, and the correct way to do that is to attribute each one to a specific source, particularly as there's such disagreement among the sources. The trick is to weed out the unworthy and make it less of a chore to read. I mean, we don't need to hear from an urban affairs librarian or a Canadian tabloid … JG66 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the way that section is constructed either, but it was insisted upon by @Dan56:. I would be in favor of simplifying the paragraph to "... the album has been variously considered under the genres of X, Y, Z" followed by more informed comments about the relationship between the album and those genres.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How about reducing the various people identifying each genre to just one of those people, ideally the most notable/reputed of those writers? (ditch Susie Skarl, leave Jim DeRogatis, for "psychedelic rock", for instance). That would read better I think. Or just relocate/recontextualize them so they're not all in that one paragraph; "Paste's Bryan Rolli deemed it a 'masterpiece' of progressive pop" sounds like an acclamatory statement that would work just as well in the Reception sections; "almost single-handedly created the idea of 'baroque pop'" would seem more appropriate in the "Influence" section. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, Dan56, JG66 how we doin here folks, any consensus or concrete actions we can take on the infobox? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think the important thing is to iron out the problems in the main text – the infobox is secondary to that. As far as your suggested list (below) goes, Gc6, I can't see how progressive pop can appear fourth when it's the most widely supported genre (although I appreciate that once a more discerning approach is applied to the range of sources, prog pop might not appear so dominant).

Like you, I have a major problem with the idea that this album, or the Beach Boys for that matter, can be labelled "rock" ("pop, rock", yes, no question) and particularly psychedelic rock. Aside from the arrangements, it's down to the way the musicians are playing. Hal Blaine, Frank Capp, Steve Douglas, Jim Horn, Plas Johnson – they're players that are so obviously, and blessedly, non-rock. But Jim DeRogatis disagrees, of course …

With the caveat that this is based mainly on what my ears tell me, I'd go with: * progressive pop * baroque pop * psychedelic pop * art rock. Or perhaps swap baroque and psychedelic in that order. But that's all academic: more so than in any album article that I've come across, we can afford to be ultra-discerning with the quality of the sources for the genres, and then we have to blindly reflect the result in the infobox. Alternatively, are there not one or two widely acknowledged authorities on the band's music, on this particular album, preferably with credentials to match? Imo, it would be preferable to go with those sources for the genres appearing in the infobox, and then introduce alternative opinions in the discussion under Music and lyrics. JG66 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

For the record, here's my proposed infobox:

• baroque pop
• psychedelic pop
• art rock
• progressive pop (if there's consensus to keep it)

gentlecollapse6 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the cherrypicked subgenres. The reason why I'd like to go with "rock, pop, psyche, prog" is because they're the most prominent umbrella terms discussed in the article (besides "classical" and "experimental" - but those are redundant of "progressive"). Different way to explain: there is no good reason why we should privilege "baroque pop" over "chamber pop", "art rock" over "experimental rock", etc. Not only are these terms vaguely synonymous, they're barely mentioned in the main text. It makes no sense why we'd be debating subgenres when the sources can't even decide whether the album is rock music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the above genres are identical to the current info box except for "psych pop" instead of "-rock" and the inclusion of "baroque pop," which we seem to have already agreed is used basically synonymously with "chamber pop" (we are, as editors, obviously allowed to make editorial decisions about which genres should be there and which we can leave out.) I think "rock, pop, psychedelic, progressive" is just a distortion of the sources...ONE source explicitly calls it progressive pop, whereas 3 sources each (right?) refer to it as baroque and chamber respectively (if we're thinking of them as roughly synonymous, that's 6 sources). How do you figure leaving both those out but still including progressive when it reflects less critical lit??) gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, you're really going far out with "classical and experimental are redundant of progressive"—you're really on a mission to change the way the word is used to talk about music in general by connecting disparate sources and linking them together to support the broadest possible definition. In my humble opinion, the way "progressive" is commonly understood by humans who actually talk about music (as opposed to geeky writers) disqualifies if from use re: Pet Sounds (SMiLE, on the other hand, seems to fit the term much better—far more unconventional compositionally, thematically, musically.) The more I think about it, the more I find the term to be inappropriate here, it's just a cohesive pop album with classical instrumentation, it's not "prog" in any layman's sense, or in the way that Hounds of Love or whatever is gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

We're not changing the word's meaning, we're maintaining the definition that was held for 30+ years by the people who were there, before sites like Wikipedia began perpetuating tripe that's gone unquestioned for nearly a decade. Check out pre-2005 discussions on the subject - nobody thought "baroque pop" was interchangeable with "chamber pop" until this 2009 edit inexplicably said it was. And it is definitely a post-millennial phenomenon. Thank the journalists who wrote about Joanna Newsom and Arcade Fire.

The same thing happened to "progressive music". About 15 years ago, some people on the Internet tried to look up what it meant for music to be "progressive" and couldn't land an answer. So what they did was create their own definition. Their understanding was based on, you know, "conventional wisdom" (actually, the wisdom of randos who only listen to bands like Yes and Genesis and maybe read that one book by Ed Macan).

"A stand-in for anything not overtly genre-purist" is not exactly it either. Maybe I'm not great at articulating it. I can give you another explanation that ties it all in one place, as opposed to "connecting disparate sources"

"Progressive rock" was a term which at the time was not directly associated with the style that later was configured as such. Playing Progressive Rock was, at the time, an intention, not a style. It was the desire to get out of habits and pre-determined patterns where songs that lasted no more than three and a half minutes and albums were collections of songs. The first few times I read the term "Progressive Rock" were in two reviews, one in the UK, after a concert of Humble Pie, and in the US, in a review of "Pet Sounds". Both Brian Wilson and Phil Spector, while set within the time that was "allowed" for singles, had gone beyond the "canonical" structure of the song, doing "pocket Symphonies", I.e. songs with an architecture and that evolved beyond the tracks of the time. [...] Later the "style" was defined, that way of playing outside of the box, with the freedom that characterised the music, called "progressive". The definition for both Italian and English artists of the '70s was never really considered at the time; it was a cataloguing that would take place in the years to come. [...] it can be a rough guide, but when the use becomes "categorical classification" it's not productive.

And to respond to the question about "less critical lit": please provide a source that details how Pet Sounds is baroque. There are a bunch in the article that talk about how the album is progressive, but I've never seen anybody assess the album for its baroque merits. It's only ever mentioned in passing ("it's lush, orchestral, ornate, baroque orchestrations ... "; "the baroque pop masterpiece ..."; "it inspired a wave of art rock and baroque pop ...").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Another b-pop source from the Miami New Times, another from Pigeons and Planes gentlecollapse6 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with Gentle's proposed subgenres, although I'm surprised "pop rock" isn't mentioned anywhere in the article; always seemed like one of the first terms I'd go for to describe any Beach Boys record, and some have (Sputnikmusic ("pop rock at its best"), Tim Sommer from the New York Observer (the greatest pop rock album ever made"), The Standard-Times ("according to some, the greatest pop-rock album of all time.") Dan56 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic is self-published...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an "emeritus" review, which is a staff review, which isn't self-published, @Ilovetopaint:. Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

How about "Rock, pop, psychedelia, progressive, chamber pop"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Consering the chamber pop page basically frames it as a 90s movement, that seems confusing, but I guess it'd be better than nothing. Also, a quick google of "pet sounds Bach" pulled up several sources talking explicitly about Wilson being inspired by Bach-style baroque instrumentation and texture, which is just incontrovertible—there's baroque era instruments all over the record. Check it out. Once again, I think you're holding on to a strict definition of "baroque pop" that no one uses. Also, "prog" has always signified "geeky pretentious rock" amongst critics, Bangs and Christgau as far back as the early 70s. 108.50.151.13 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

1) [re: prog] Yes, it's a bit like how a lot of people think "art pop" = "avant-garde pop" even though 90% of the academic material says otherwise

You act like those latter two terms are extremely distinct and not just loose labels to describe tendencies that are often indistinguishable—is Bjork art pop or avant pop, is Brian eno art pop or avant pop, etc.. who cares? Prog, on the other hand, has pretty much always had that central association—King Crimson, symphonic pomp rock, nerdy concept albums, etc. If it just meant "experimental rock" then they would have called it "experimental rock"...you don't see anyone calling the Velvet Underground or Suicide or James Chance "prog". Moreover, the word "progressive" itself blatantly suggests a pompous judgement of "betterment" that lots of these writers seem to shrug off in the interest of rehabilitating the term. Now THAT confounds me.

Nothing here I disagree with...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

2) I can see Jimmy Webb talking about "God Only Knows" and Bruce Johnston talking about "Here Today". There's also this, but again, Bach is only mentioned in passing. Those two songs actually deserve to be called "baroque". What confounds me is how the majority of the album (reminder: most of these tracks are built from I - ii7 - V progressions, accordions, tack pianos, 12-strings, woodblocks, muted guitars, tambourines, Coke cans, etc) can be considered "Bach-style instrumentation and texture". Since when was Bach ever associated with four-on-the-floor keyboards and shuffling timpanis? (I know two other musicians who fit that characterization: one happens to start with "Bach", the other ends in "'pector", and there's a lot more material written about their influence on Wilson than there is for Bach.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You keep going on about chord progressions (speaking about instrumentation, you conveniently forgot about the harpsichords, French horns, glockenspiel, timpani etc), and I keep telling you that the phrase functionally means something looser than you want it to mean. No one seems to hear "baroque pop" and think "Bach progressions with a catchy chorus" besides you. This is the last time I'll reiterate it. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't forget timpanis, read again. And I deliberately listed instruments that Wilson went back to for more than one track, something we can't say for the French horn or the glockenspiel (surprised? see for yourself).

I completely understand what you mean by "phrase functionality", but it's not applicable here. Your view of the term's "functionality" only resonates with a younger population whose "musical consciousness" is limited to whatever they read on an obscure forum, Facebook group, or subreddit (discussions usually being just mindless variations on "Baroque pop... Yeah, baroque pop"). In pre-2005 texts about the subject, there is a clear sense that most people dropping the phrase are referring to something particularly Bach-like that a corner of pop musicians were exploring in the '60s. Zoom out a little; nobody in 1966, 1977, 1988, or 1999 thought Roy Orbison or the Righteous Brothers were "baroque", but because there has been a relatively recent trend to desperately cram everything into a niche continuum, things that were previously described only as "pop", "rock", "psychedelic", or "R&B" have now magically appeared in the new online-exclusive baroque pop canon.

Your "phrase functionality" argument works when it concerns people calling Pet Sounds a "psychedelic" album. Even though there are few psychedelic qualities to Pet Sounds, there have still been real conversations regarding the matter, as in, which parts are psychedelic, why they're considered psychedelic, and how much of the album is psychedelic. Some of it is convincing, some of it isn't, but at least the explanations follow some sort of "it's X because of Y which is different from Z" logic, and most importantly, they exist. We can learn about it as far back as 1984(!).

With the exception of two tracks (so far), nothing of the sort has ever happened with Pet Sounds and its connection to the baroque. I would be much more willing to concede that Pet Sounds fits in the "canon" if there was material that justified including "Caroline, No" or "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" beyond "uhh, they're orchestral, uhh, they use harpsichords, uhh, they're more musically complex".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Another alternative

OK, so I think we have at least 1 other person that's fine with "Rock, pop, psychedelia, progressive, chamber pop" (maybe swap progressive for prog-pop? we have no sources that call for prog-rock). I don't know whether it's appropriate that we include any "rock" in the infobox, since sources can't agree on that matter. But if we simply take out "rock" from that line-up, then it looks a little weird. So I also thought of this arrangement

• Progressive pop

(Following WP:WEIGHT, here are my arguments for placing it first in line:

a) most number of refs; I could find maybe a dozen that repeat the "most progressive pop" factoid [no one has convinced me that it's any different from extrapolating "hardcore punk" out of "most hardcore punk"]

"The Sex Pistols were definitely the most hardcore punk band of the late 1970s punk explosion" makes perfect sense and yet is not the same as calling the Sex Pistols a "hardcore punk" band in terms of the genre. This isn't hard. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

b) longevity; it was the first subgenre attributed to the album [decades earlier than "psychedelic", "baroque", or "chamber"]

c) prominence; numerous callbacks to "prog" or "progressive" [plus relevant aspects of the genre are mentioned throughout the article, specifically that it subverts many standards of pop music])

• chamber pop (I haven't read enough pre-2005 coverage of the tag to know whether or not this is appropriate usage; considering the wealth of Pet Sounds comparisons the label attracts, I'm leaning on yes)
• psychedelic pop (maybe swap the order with chamber; should also consider maintaining "psychedelia" since sources don't agree on "psyche-pop" or "psyche-rock")

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So what are we looking at? Psychedelic pop, chamber pop, progressive pop? I'd be okay adding art rock too (doesn't this get at basically the same thing as "progressive" without all the nasty associations?). gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those three. I'll change it now if there are no objections. I don't know if art rock should be kept, for the reason I already gave, but I can find 2 more sources for it [1] [2] (+chamber pop). That would bump it up to 5 refs. And yes, you're right that it gets at "basically the same thing as 'progressive'", except in the context of rock, but not a lot of people seem to think Pet Sounds should be called a "rock" album.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think "pop rock" should stay @Ilovetopaint:; we have one source verifying it's been "viewed by some writers as the best pop rock album of all time", along with at least a few others that personally use this genre to describe it. Dan56 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Pop-rock

Since it was removed, I'll cite some sources that support its inclusion:

• Sputnikmusic ("pop rock at its best")
• Tim Sommer from the New York Observer (the greatest pop rock album ever made")
• The Standard-Times ("according to some, the greatest pop-rock album of all time.")
• Brian Aberback in USA Today
• Richie Unterberger who discusses it as an example, in tandem with other 1960s pop-rock albums in which "the classical part of the equation was far more subordinate to the pop-rock part".
• Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Pet Sounds "pop rock" because I'm positive that term is meant to be reserved for early Beatles, Hollies, Byrds, power pop, jangle pop and so forth. My interpretation of those sources is that they're simply trying to avoid the "is it pop or rock?" question. Whatever the case, the "rock" designation has been disputed by a number of people. From what I can grab quickly,

• Brian defies any notion of genre safety ... There isn't much rocking here, and even less rolling. Pet Sounds is at times futuristic, progressive, and experimental. ... there's no boogie, no woogie, and the only blues are in the themes and in Brian's voice.

• [re: "That's Not Me"] The closest thing to a conventional rocker on Pet Sounds ...

• What's your point? That this isn't a conventional rock album? Dan56 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• you can’t really call Pet Sounds a rock album. This, along with its quality, created its special place in rock history; there was no category for its fans to place it in.

• Kinda calling it more than a rock album by calling it a pop-rock album... Dan56 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• It certainly doesn’t sound like a rock album. Nobody’s kicking out any jams on this record.

• No one is kicking out any jams, indeed. Dan56 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This source makes "pop rock" look especially outrageous in the context of this album

• Pop rock was an upbeat variety of rock music (represented by artists such as Andy Kim, the Bells, Paul McCartney, Lighthouse, Peter Frampton).

• "Rock: A Canadian Perspective" Dan56 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is a reach; why would they feel the need to answer the "is it pop or is it rock" question when they can avoid describing the genre altogether? And I would hardly consider McCartney or Frampton "rockers", er. I think the absence of a "boogie" or a "woogie" or "blues" would be relevant if we were talking about rock and roll, not "rock". And I hear enough rhythm on this album that this scrutinizing of sources seems plain silly. Dan56 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of Early Pop/Rock's biggest acts in the '60s included the Beach Boys, the Four Seasons, the Everly Brothers (entering a different phase of their career), the Association, the Rascals, the Righteous Brothers, and (in the U.K.) the Walker Brothers and Petula Clark; other major figures included composer Burt Bacharach, producer Phil Spector, and Brill Building songwriting teams like Barry/Greenwich and Goffin/King. The classic '50s and '60s-style strain of Early Pop/Rock morphed into AM pop, pop/rock, and soft rock by the mid-'70s

What does this have to do with Pet Sounds? Oh, if I were to search for pop rock with the slash rather than the hyphen, I would've surely gotten more hits/sources supporting the genre here. Dan56 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

While a lot of those people had Wall of Sound hits, none of them were in the same vein as Pet Sounds.

The Pet Sounds recording sessions also saw Wilson moving away from the standard rock setup of guitar, bass guitar, drums, vocals, and occasional keyboard into more experimental territory.

No mention of "pop rock"... Dan56 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Pet Sounds was the most revolutionary pop album released up until that point. (People who claim it is a rock or pop/rock album are out to lunch, as on it there is barely any electric guitar – the defining instrument of rock music.

Don't see the importance of a self-published opinion, which I wouldn't agree with anyway; lots of "pop-rock" with acoustic guitar instead of electric. Dan56 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We have 5+ refs for at least 5 or 6 genres, including "art rock", which I'd put way before "pop rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Welp, maybe art rock ought to be there tooooo. Dan56 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pet Sounds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/beach-boys-thats-why-god-made-the-radio_n_1569368.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://music.uk.launch.yahoo.com/read/review/12038027
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310113440/http://www.mtv.co.uk/channels/vh1/chart/greatest-albums-ever to http://www.mtv.co.uk/channels/vh1/chart/greatest-albums-ever

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Singles

I know "Caroline, No" is a solo single, but the lead section of the article states it is Pet Sounds's lead single. Should the song be added to the infobox? - ElectricController (talk page) 20:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether the sleeve for "Caroline, No" explicitly mentions Pet Sounds.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pet Sounds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006142154/http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs65.html to http://esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs65.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125223127/http://teachrock.org/media/essays/surf_himes_with_maia_edits_2.pdf to http://teachrock.org/media/essays/surf_himes_with_maia_edits_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109022135/http://brianwilsonfans.com/page11.php to http://www.brianwilsonfans.com/page11.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304124623/http://www.wonderingsound.com/connections/six-degrees-of-the-beach-boys-pet-sounds/ to http://www.wonderingsound.com/connections/six-degrees-of-the-beach-boys-pet-sounds/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224121626/http://www.btinternet.com/~bellagio/60ssingles.html to http://www.btinternet.com/~bellagio/60ssingles.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6iJC4QIAZ?url=http://www.listsofbests.com/list/13644-100-greatest-albums-ever-2006-readers-poll to http://www.listsofbests.com/list/13644-100-greatest-albums-ever-2006-readers-poll

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Art rock/Art pop?

After reading the page on art rock (which makes it sound like art rock/pop) I was wondering if it should be considered art rock or art pop with the Campbell 2012, p. 250 reference. Any thoughts or opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7cd0:c83a:e347:f423:9c81 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 14 January 2018 UTC (UTC)

Both of those genres have distinct connotations. "Art rock" mostly refers to David Bowie and Velvet Underground, and "art pop" is like Kate Bush and Róisín Murphy. I cannot see how either of those fit Pet Sounds unless it's referring to the exotic instruments and complex arrangements, in which case those characteristics are already suggested by prog pop and chamber pop, which are more tightly associated with the album. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm mainly referring to how in the fourth paragraph it says "A heralding work of psychedelia, the album furthered an aesthetic trend within rock by helping it transform from dance music into music that was made for listening to, elevating itself to the level of art rock." Shouldn't one of the genres be Art Rock if this is the case? If not then shouldn't this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not really for any of us to evaluate. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE I think it should stay art rock, no matter f they know what they're talking about or not. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorial discretion applies here. If you look in the section "Music and lyrics" you will see 5000 permutations of rock and pop listed. There are even three sources calling it an emo album. Rule of thumb holds that 3-4 genres are the limit, and so the ones in the infobox were chosen (by this talk page) based on the number of sources and with consideration for WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:WEIGHT. There's no reason why "pop rock" can't be replaced by "art rock" except I think that, as a style of music, Pet Sounds definitely fits more with "pop rock" than "art rock". Personally I would rather have it simply as "Progressive pop, chamber pop, psychedelic pop". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Emo??? I beg your pardon? LMFAO! Anyway the above reasoning works for me. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I want it to say Art rock is for it's importance to the genre. Based on the statement in the fourth paragraph, it very well could be the very first art rock album ever, unless i'm mistaken, correct me if i'm wrong. Do you understand what i'm saying? A bunch of the beach boys songs have more than 4 genres attached to theme suchs as "God Only Knows" and "Good Vibrations", each with 5 and 6 genres respectively.

I hope you understand what i'm saying, at least about the importance to the genre. 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the more genres that readers see in the infobox, the less seriously they will take the article. Pet Sounds is definitely not the first "art rock" album in any sense of the term. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you care more about the aesthetic of the article than the actual knowledge on it? And if I do mind asking what was the first art rock album? Certainly not Rubber Soul or The Velvet Underground and Nico or Black Monk Time 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MULTIPLE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with the guy above, Pet Sounds is probably the first art rock album, or should at least be labeled as “proto-art rock”. Dale's Dead Bug (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pet Sounds is a fairly accessible orchestral pop album with relatively complex song structures compared to most other popular music of the era. Now define "art rock". If it's rock music with an avant-garde sensibility, then that's not Pet Sounds at all. If it's "prog-rock", then that's not the album either. If it's rock music made to be "art", well then, that's not a definition that has anything to do with how the album sounds, and even if it did, there are multiple sources in the article that dispute whether Pet Sounds should be considered "rock music" at all. And that's a perfectly valid perspective to consider.

WP:VNOTSUFF: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

WP:BALASPS: "An article should [...] strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

In other words, editorial discretion is a virtue.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MULTIPLE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Proto-art rock sounds about right? Or maybe proto-prog? Peggy The Hill (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Those genres don't even exist. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 05:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MULTIPLE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then again, i'm pretty sure protopunk didn't exist in the 60s. I'm sure describing Pet Sounds as "proto-art rock" or "proto-prog" or just art-rock wouldn't be too much of a stretch. PapayaMan (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody calls Pet Sounds proto-prog or proto-art rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean nobody calls it that when somebody just did? Pet Sounds and The Beach Boys themselves are also mentioned on the proto-prog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-prog) article which is more than enough reason to list it as a genre. Unless the proto-prog article is wrong of course. 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MULTIPLE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just looked at the proto-prog article myself and found this. "Both the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (1966) and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), with their lyrical unity, extended structure, complexity, eclecticism, experimentalism, and influences derived from classical music forms, are largely viewed as beginnings in the progressive rock genre. - Macan 1997, p. 15,20. So yeah i'd say that's about right. Also saying Pet Sounds isn't avant-garde when two of the songs are listed as avant-pop? PapayaMan (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Sgt. Pepper is listed as Proto-Prog and has 6 genres, and Pet Sounds is far more complex musically, why shouldn't Pet Sounds be listed as proto-prog or art rock? Jeff The Boom (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Instead of comparing this Wikipedia article to other Wikipedia articles, try searching for WP:Reliable sources to see what they say about Pet Sounds. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not on the musical opinions of editors. If you want to change this article, you will have to find strong sources in the literature about it. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Just changed it for my friend who originally wanted it and added a strong source. You're welcome. Jeff The Boom (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC) If the "just because it's from a verified source doesn't mean it belongs in the article" statement is true then how come there are articles that exist on wikipedia with such things on them? IE: Albums with more than 4 genres? At least according to you? Peggy The Hill (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Looks like my edit got changed even though we talked it out in the talk section and I used a reliable source. Great first impression from the Wikipedia community Jeff The Boom (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Ha ha ha, "Wikipedia: Where Anyone Can Edit". What a joke". Dale's Dead Bug (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Just keep trying bud, you gotta fight for what you believe in! Peggy The Hill (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Brian using a 545 microphone

The article states that Brian used a Shure 545, but it cites The Pet Sounds Sessions liner notes where Chuck Britz states he used a "little cheap 5-35" and not a 545. A 535 was another shure microphone, but it's not very directional like a 545 would be. Confused as to the truth when reading this article 82.39.93.113 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Likely a typo on my part, it's fixed now.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

myth of poor sales

In Heroes And Villains, probably the best-selling book on The Beach Boys and the first "true story of The Beach Boys", author Steven Gaines actually spends very little space discussing the music and recordings of the group. He did devote an eight page section (pages 142-149 in the cloth edition) on Pet Sounds. His research turned up a series of "facts" and quotes that, when read as a whole, only add to the confusion.

For example, he notes that "Statistically, Pet Sounds didn't do too badly—it spent a total of thirty nine weeks on the charts, peaking at number 11 (sic) only five weeks after its release, with well over half a million units sold." In the very next paragraph, he quotes Al Couri, head of Capitol promotion, as saying "[Pet Sounds] was probably ahead of its time and yet it didn't sell. The retail action was not as good as previous Beach Boys albums." Gaines then remarks, "Only eight weeks after the release of Brian's precious Pet Sounds LP, Capitol released Best of The Beach Boys, which quickly went gold". [Emphasis added in all three quotes. NU] Of course, conflicting remarks concerning this project are not exclusive to Capitol: reread this article and pay attention to some of Brian Wilson's claims.

Now, prior to 1974, to qualify for an RIAA Gold Record Award, an LP had to have sold $1,000,000 at the manufacturer's wholesale price which was based on one third of the album's listed retail price. This was approximately 550,000 copies sold in the United States. By the end of 1966, eight Beach Boys albums had gone gold (only Surfin' Safari, Beach Boys' Christmas Album, and Beach Boys' Party! had failed to sell the requisite number of copies) with the length of time between release and RIAA certification being at least six months for all but one title. The average wait was more than eighteen months; three albums took almost three years each! The above cited Best Of The Beach Boys took nine months to quickly go gold. Therefore, if Gaines statistics are accurate, it would seem that Pet Sounds was doing just fine for a Beach Boys album of the time, which is. of course, far better than we have ever been led to believe.

— Umphred, Neal (1997). "Let's Go Away for Awhile: The Continuing Saga of Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds". In Abbott, Kingsley (ed.). Back to the Beach: A Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys Reader (1st ed.). London: Helter Skelter. p. 39. ISBN 978-1900924023.

I don't know if this is a totally accurate summation, or if other details were uncovered in the last 20 years, so I'm just leaving it here for now.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

From "Beach Boys Hang Ten in Hotel Lobby" Creem October 1971:

"Even the most acclaimed Beach Boys albums have been deleted from Capitol's catalogs, since they weren't selling. Jardine: 'Right. Smiley Smile is one of the finest albums ever recorded, in my opinion, and Pet Sounds too, and they're both deleted.'"

From "Spirit Of America: A Beach Boys Retrospective" Circus August 1975:

"May 1966 saw the release of Pet Sounds, an album that has now been released three separate times, only recently gaining the critical acclaim it deserves."

From Rock 100 David Dalton, Lenny Kaye (1977):

"The departure was too radical – the previous album, after all, had been the "live" Beach Boys Party – they felt it would be disastrous to their image, and "why mess with the formula?" In a sense they were right: Pet Sounds was their greatest achievement, but it was also the first of their albums that failed to become a million seller. And this created an insecurity in the group that was to undermine all the Beach Boy's future output. Unlike the audiences of Dylan and the Beatles, Beach Boys fans were not ready to follow them in their experiments. What was worse, Capitol was so opposed to it that they agreed to issue the album only if they could release simultaneously a Best of the Beach Boys repackage. Capitol at the time was concentrating almost exclusively on the Beatles and consequently short-circuited the only American group that came close to rivaling the Beatles in scope and mass appeal."

Piriczki (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pet Sounds most likely had the initial sales it garnered due to the fact that "Sloop John B" was included on the album. "Wouldn't It Be Nice" contributed also, but to a lesser extent I would imagine. I have no source to back this opinion only my memory of what was going on musically at the time. What I remember was SJB to Good Vibrations on what was then called Top 40 radio. A local Top 40 station, KIOA 940 AM, used to publish their top "9+40" list which could be picked up at local record stores that participated. I remember seeing "Wouldn't It Be Nice" listed, but it got "sparse" airtime compared to the aforementioned pair. "Good Vibrations", at the time of it's release, was mind blowing in every sense of that phrase. A friend that shared the same musical interest as myself barely spoke of Pet Sounds although he did turn me onto "God Only Knows". It was kind of a non event. I have no doubt that the claim of the album not selling as well as previous BB albums is accurate. The mention of it not receiving the recognition it deserved, while being relative in many regards, is accurate also. The album was not raved about as Sgt. Pepper came to be. Comparatively speaking it was overlooked by the general music buying public.

As to the sales, was the half million sold being over the course of 39 weeks or for it's initial 5 weeks? My guess it was attained well after the initial 5 weeks as charts were not strictly based on sales only - airplay was a part of it. (I will admit I could be totally wrong about that, but it's what I recall from that time.) It would make no sense for Capitol to dilute sales by putting out a best of package 8 weeks after Pet Sounds initial release and chart peak. One would wait until sales were showing a consistent decline to put out a new album so the "current" album would get it's best chance at sales. Capitol was not getting the ROI they expected. Seems reasonable to make that assumption. At the very least sales were not what Capitol had hoped they would be so the best of was put together and released to recoup monies advanced/spent for Pet Sounds. That's how it appears to me anyway. THX1136 (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

From all I've read about Pet Sounds, there's a pretty consistent message that it was considered a low-seller, a commercial failure even, in the US. So I don't see how we can do anything else but go with that as our "fact", in the lead and in the main text, and then perhaps add as an aside that there has been some conjecture over this issue. Per WP:DUE.

Reading the Umphred passage above, it strikes me that the Beach Boys weren't exactly selling vast numbers of albums, anyway, if it was taking at least six, and on average eighteen, months for an album to be certified gold. I only mention that because I've read in Peter Ames Carlin's book, reproduced in an article or two on Wikipedia, I think, how the albums preceding Sounds had each sold "millions", which seems unlikely. (And then there's that point that always confuses us non-Americans: in RIAA-speak, a "million-seller" is not necessarily an album that sold 1 million copies, just one that shipped $1 million's worth. The problem is, many authors appear to translate the term into the first [mis]interpretation.) But was Pet Sounds certified gold? I know I've read that it wasn't, and that its first accreditation from the RIAA was the platinum award, in 2000.

THX1136's recollection about how the album was "kind of a non event" in the US and was "overlooked by the general music buying public" is consistent with the idea that Capitol panicked and swiftly got the Best of collection to market, surely. I'm always wary of diverging from how events were reported close to the time, unless it's clear that something was misreported, of course, and latter-day coverage has corrected that error. Writing in 1981, for The History of Rock – a magazine that sought to tell the story of what was going on in music, rather than revise it in any way with retrospective insight, etc. – Simon Frith says: "Pet Sounds wasn’t exactly a commercial failure – its premier track, ‘Good Vibrations’, was a huge hit on both sides of the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the Beach Boys continued to be regarded by the music world (including Capitol Records) as a party band who’d made a ‘weird’ record; Pet Sounds never got the critical acclaim afforded to Sgt Pepper." JG66 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Good Vibrations was huge indeed. Unfortunately it was not on Pet Sounds (released 5 months later), but on the followup Smiley Smile which, at the time, seemed too little, too late (especially when factoring in all the hype that surrounded it and it's only other draw - Heroes & Villians which itself paled in comparison to GV). Had it been included on Sounds that album would have seen a significant bump in sales I would think. But that delay would not have been able to take advantage of Sloop John B's popularity. The timing would have been quite "tricky".

Also, to the point of the groups overall sales volume, it's accurate to say the band was not selling in numbers that compared well with other groups of the day. From my perspective the Boys were still looked upon as a "surf" group even as Brian was moving beyond that label. I would agree with JG66, it would be difficult to say with confidence anything other than what we have to go on currently. Adding the "caveat" to the text would seem appropriate. THX1136 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Prior to 1975, to qualify for an RIAA Gold Record Award, an LP had to have sold $1,000,000 at the manufacturer's wholesale price which was based on one third of the album's listed retail price. The list price of Pet Sounds in 1966 was $3.98 for mono, $4.98 for stereo. Sales of mono and stereo LPs were about equal in 1966 so the average wholesale price would have been $1.50. At that price it needed to sell 666,667 copies to qualify for gold. There are claims that Pet Sounds did have enough sales to go gold but Capitol didn't apply for the award. I don't know if that is true or not. Either way, gold status is a limited comparison in that it only establishes a minimum sales amount and some gold records could have sold far more than other gold records.

The other measure of sales in 1966 compared to previous Beach Boys' albums would be chart history. Compared to their previous three studio albums, All Summer Long, The Beach Boys Today! and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!), Pet Sounds did not perform nearly as well on the Billboard album chart. All Summer Long peaked at No. 4 where it stayed for 5 weeks and stayed in the top 10 for 16 weeks, top 20 for 18 weeks. The Beach Boys Today! also peaked at No. 4 and held that position for 6 non-consecutive weeks, and stayed in the top 10 for 14 weeks, top 20 for 23 weeks. Summer Days (And Summer Nights) peaked at No. 2 and was in the top 10 for 10 weeks, top 20 for 17 weeks. By comparison, Pet Sounds peaked at No. 10 (for one week) and was in the top 20 for 12 weeks. Al Coury's statement that "the retail action was not as good as previous Beach Boys albums" appears to be an accurate assessment based on the chart history. I do question the second sentence of the article that says the album peaked at "number 10 in the Billboard 200, a significantly lower placement than the band's preceding albums." I would say it was a somewhat lower placement, and would reserve "significantly lower placement" for Smiley Smile. Piriczki (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

THX1136 Yep, as I was writing the above, I realised Frith's reference to Vibrations was somewhat undermining the credibility of a source that I was trumping up as accurate and impeccable! Within the context of the HoR article, the statement, while still wrong, does make more sense because Frith is talking about the Pet Sounds project/period (Wilson working with outside musicians, free of Capitol's usual A&R restrictions, etc.).

Piriczki I know the record company would have had to apply for a platinum award (and on many occasions, companies didn't), but didn't the RIAA determine gold status off its own bat, without an audit request? I've read that was the case in the 1970s, anyway. JG66 (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, sir. I figured you were going for a period statement anyway. I was thinking the same as you on the gold record award but I have no source to back that up. I'm thinking it's safe to say the album did not sell at a level that reflects how it is now regarded. It certainly did not match the sales of Sgt. Pepper which McCartney attributes Pet Sounds with inspiring. I do find it fascinating that both groups were working on such amazing music at around the same time. For folks not growing up at that time in history there is no real good way to appreciate what those two group's output in 66/67 meant in the way popular music was transformed/affected. It's so unfortunate that Wilson was side tracked by the issues that plagued him. THX1136 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The RIAA always relied on member and non-member record companies to submit sales figures for certification, otherwise they couldn't know how much a record sold. You may be thinking of the pre-1976 era when the RIAA had the only independently certified award (the Gold record) and record companies were issuing platinum and silver awards on their own. Despite the disputes with the Beach Boys, Capitol still got certified Gold awards for "Good Vibrations" and two albums in December 1966 and a Gold for Best of the Beach Boys in April 1967 so it would be odd to not to apply for a gold record for Pet Sounds if it had the requisite sales, and even more odd to send it to the cut-out bins if it was selling. Piriczki (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Not for the first time, I'm very impressed with your background knowledge, particularly on issues that often get slightly fudged in the retelling of rock history. But look, if you keep producing quotes from contemporary articles in Circus and Creem, seemingly at random, you'll never get rid of me – I'll be hounding you for early-'70s album reviews forever! JG66 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Baroque pop

Why isn't baroque pop one of the listed genres? It's possibly the most accurate description of this album's music, and it's how the album is defined by RYM users, for example [3] (I know RYM users aren't a scholar source, but still, the collective wisdom often deserves some consideration at least). Also, I don't really know why pop rock is here. I think baroque pop should come instead of pop rock. 80.179.11.124 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The more accurate description is "chamber pop"—historically, that term has been applied to Pet Sounds with more notability and frequency than "baroque pop". The Rateyourmusic populace is really just the blind leading the blind. They think Wild Honey is "baroque pop" too. The reason "pop rock" is listed is because it has several reliable sources supporting it (I don't agree that it should be included either, but only because there is debate regarding whether Pet Sounds should be considered a "rock" album at all).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if baroque pop isn't the main genre, it should still be included in the genre box if it's extended to multiple genres like it is, and especially is pop rock is included, even though it's even farther from being the main genre. 80.179.11.124 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Manuscript of Lyrics for God Only Knows - Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Cleveland (by Adam Jones).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

DannyS712: I'm sorry but I think it's pretty poor form to nominate this for Good Article when it seems you've had no input whatsoever up to now (that is, under your username). There are editors who have slaved over this article for years, honing into the shape it's got to now. If you think it's worth a shot at GA, fair enough, but I suggest it would show goodwill and consideration of other editors' efforts if you first raise the idea here and ask for co-nominees. Or rather: ask if you can tag along as their co-nominee ...

I say this because there are probably a dozen music articles from this 1960s period, mostly Beatles, that I've developed in readiness for GA nom, but I've just not had the motivation/focus to complete the final (largely cosmetic) fine-tuning required for the process. So, I'd hate to think I or anyone else need to scramble around in case another editor happens to swoop in, out of the blue, and grab the nomination, and by implication the effort that's gone into hundreds of edits on each article, as their own. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: I'm a bit confused - I wasn't the one who nominated this; @BMO4744 was the user that nominated it. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Ah yes, you're right to be confused ... I'm so sorry, I saw the nominee's name here, your first-time edit on the article itself, and decided that you and BMO4744 were one and the same. Incredibly dumb of me.

@BMO4744: the message above is clearly for you. JG66 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Commenting just to say that there's a lot in the article that needs to be trimmed down - namely quotes which beg paraphrasing. "Music and lyrics" is the most problematic section as it's arranged in a very bloated fashion. I think discussion of the songs and the album's "concept" should follow a similar format as Sgt. Pepper's and Skylarking. There's also some sourcing issues to address. ILTP (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Context for point about influence on McCartney's bass playing

Further to this edit, Granata's being overly optimistic in his attempt to draw parallels between Pet Sounds and Revolver. He says: "As early as Revolver, we hear a new complexity in McCartney's bass playing – a factor he freely attributes to Brian. 'Brian Wilson was a big influence,' McCartney said in Mark Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions ..." (More context is provided here, halfway down, under "Bass boost", but Lewisohn's questions have been cut, as have McCartney's comments on a Wilson bassline typically starting on G when the song's key would suggest a C.) McCartney talks about "Michelle" there, so Granata is ignoring the fact that McCartney was also doing this in 1965.

I believe McCartney's first mention of melodic bass playing in the book Many Years from Now comes on p. 271, while discussing "You Won't See Me" (also from Rubber Soul). He cites it as an example of a very melodic, Motown-inspired part, and then talks about how he, Wilson and James Jamerson were "all doing melodic bass lines at that time, all from completely different angles ... all picking up on what each other did". Then on p. 281, Barry Miles writes that one of the things that most excited McCartney about Pet Sounds was it "proved that the bass player need not play the root note of a chord but can weave a melody around it of its own". So, and as Walter Everett states, this approach was definitely embraced by McCartney in 1965, and he was particularly impressed by Wilson's latest use of it. I have seen this Miles p. 281 statement presented on Wikipedia as if Pet Sounds educated McCartney or introduced the idea to him; it's not that, it proved the point to him, and he took delight as a fellow bass player, just as he says he took delight in recording his bass part on "Michelle" with the same approach.

I have read Wilson recalling his first impressions of Rubber Soul and saying how much he loved McCartney's bass playing on the record. That's not needed here (although I will add it at the Sgt. Pepper article), but it is necessary to avoid giving the impression here that McCartney's melodic approach started with Revolver and that Wilson was the sole influence, which is how Granata appears to present it.

Also, again under Connections to contemporary works, the statement "According to musician Lenie Colacino, McCartney 'didn't start using the upper register on his Rickenbacker bass until after he heard Pet Sounds" ... well, how upper-register does it need to be? Not "With a Little Help" upper, no, but his playing on songs like "You Won't See Me", "If I Needed Someone" and "Rain" is both melodic and high register, according to most descriptions, I believe. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Upper register" on an electric bass refers to the "notes above the octave" (i.e. the 12th fret). My cursory glance at the bass tabs for those songs reveals that Macca didn't reach past the 10th fret on high E (12th if we count the hammer-ons in "Rain") until "With a Little Help" (14th fret) and "Penny Lane" (16th fret). ili (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but then there's "What You're Doing" from 1964? – as before, I'm using my ears not a bass tab. If that one qualifies, it has to be said that McCartney played the part on his Hofner and so, for the wrong reasons, Colacino's point with regard to the Rickenbacker still stands ... I just wonder whether a McCartney-admiring bass expert reading the article might take umbrage: nothing's as high register as "With a Little Help from My Friends", sure, and there's no doubt that PS influenced his playing on that and other tracks, but McCartney was extremely adventurous and aware of the bass's tonal and timbral properties by 1965. The Rickenbacker itself was as much of an inspiration (because it didn't sound out of tune high up the neck like the Hofner), and it's only the keys of those Rubber Soul and early '66 songs that determined whether he passed the 12th fret. If it's possible, it might be an idea to link "high register" to anything we have, to at least define the term and contextualise the statement. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by "what about WYD"... That song doesn't have any high bass notes. I'm also unsure what you mean by the keys stopping McCartney from going high up. Every note in the chromatic scale is represented on frets 12-14. FYI Penny Lane traverses G and A, the same keys as Rain and WYD, respectively. Michelle is in F, so on that song, McCartney could have easily worked in a high G, A, B♭, or C if he so wished (that's more than half of the notes in F major). ili (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Final paragraph in lead

I think this paragraph needs reworking because much of it presents a picture that only came to be long after the album's release, in some cases, decades later. The problem, as I see it, is the blurring of recognition for Pet Sounds with historical points relating to developments at the time.

What got my attention here was the implication that the album made other musical acts go psychedelic or more psychedelic at the time. From reading plenty on psychedelia, I don't think this is the case, and I'm not sure the article supports such a contention. Seems to me it's more a case of music historians, and critics writing retrospectively, deciding: "You know what – this album is psychedelic and/because it preceded loads of psychedelic music that has some similar traits." Which is a fair point, but it's not the same thing as the album being crucial to or influencing (as I, wrongly perhaps, just reworded it to) the development of the genre. Seems it's more accurate to say Pet Sounds contributed to psyche's development; either that or the album has subsequently been recognised as a key early work in the genre. It probably is correct to highlight its influence on the development of progressive rock, but again I think there's still an element of revisionism there.

There's a similar problem with the statement that "the record furthered the cultural legitimization of popular music". For the most part – individuals like Leonard Bernstein aside – recognition of the album's place in that development came long, long afterwards as Pet Sounds gained in stature. It's not as if the cultural publications who suddenly elevated pop music out of its teenybopper, entertainment role in 1966–67 (The New York Times, The Guardian, Time magazine, the UK and US literary journals, etc.) recognised Pet Sounds then. But the lead appears to be stating that it was in the forefront of this discourse.

In the first paragraph, we state that "It initially met with a lukewarm critical and commercial response in the United States ..." (Of course, in the UK, the album was critically admired and several musicians there were vocal in their praise for its artistic merits.) But aside from that sentence, the impression the reader gets from the lead section is one of unqualified artistic success and musical influence. Pet Sounds got there eventually – we all know that – but we're presenting it as if the world moved there and then. JG66 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not getting this. If the album influenced many pop musicians to think about records as works of high aesthetic value, then why do we need any more proof of the fact that the album helped elevate pop to art? Whether the album received that recognition among the cultural establishment in 1966 seems to be a different issue entirely. ili (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how one reads that statement "the record furthered the cultural legitimization of popular music". It's currently linked to Art music#Popular music. But I read "cultural legitimization" as being purely recognition-based, that pop music was "legitimized" through critical accolades and approbation from the cultural press. Otherwise, it's just a marginal, underground development (in which case, how has any legitimization taken place?). And again, that elevation of Pet Sounds came way later. It was only part of the cultural legitimization of pop, and the contemporaneous elevation of the genre to an art form, insofar as it influenced works that did get immediate recognition and therefore were at the centre of this cultural validation (eg, the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper, of course). JG66 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Just after Brian stopped touring

I find "The rest of the group – Brian's brothers Carl and Dennis, their cousin Mike Love, and their friend Al Jardine – continued to tour without Wilson, who was replaced on the road by Bruce Johnston of Bruce & Terry.[5]". Glen Campbell was the immediate fill-in, but would leave and be succeeded by Johnston. Carlm0404 (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

just after Brian Wilson quit touring

I found "The rest of the group – Brian's brothers Carl and Dennis, their cousin Mike Love, and their friend Al Jardine – continued to tour without Wilson, who was replaced on the road by Bruce Johnston of Bruce & Terry." Wasn't there an interim period where Glen Campbell was taking Brian's place before he was in turn replaced by Bruce Johnston? Carlm0404 (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Acclaimedmusic.net aggregation - still No.1

Although Revolver took No.1 in 2014 (and might have been in one or two other years), it looks like Pet Sounds has sailed on at the top for most of acclaimedmusic's life. It would be great to have that in the article. Can't find an RS that says so, but there has to be one. I really don't like the ref. we have at the moments for its position there - it's kind of like an anti-accolade. Boscaswell talk 21:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

GAN

Are we ever going to bring this to GA? – zmbro _(talk) 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Zmbro: It could go through a GA review, but I have a feeling that it would pass inspection only after sacrificing a great chunk of content and information. ili (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

  ILIL, Agreed. I recall you saying the same thing a while ago. I feel like we should hop on that, considering how important this record is to music. It wouldn't pass FAC at this state, but I'm sure with some dedication we could bring it to GA. – zmbro _(talk) 16:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Since 2019, I've addressed some of those issues. I think the only major problems left is citations and page numbers, which I would've fixed already if I had the means to. ili (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

ILIL, Ah that makes sense. On a quick glance I'm noticing quite a few sourcing issues. Most websites aren't archived and the reissue section would need to be put in prose. I also question the reliability of a few of the websites used currently used. Hopefully one day. – zmbro _(talk) 17:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Reissues" section essentially consists of the same sentence repeated ten times: "In [year], Pet Sounds was issued by [label]." I'd think it'd be tiresome to peruse if it wasn't presented as a list. ili (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

ILIL, It could probably be copyedited in some fashion to make it look good. Bulleted lists don't always look the best in articles, and I've always been told by other editors to put these things in prose. I'm sure there's a way, either being grouped by labels or something else. – zmbro _(talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I love the album, as we all do, but even so, I think the article is just too damn long. There's interesting, there's worthwhile detail, and then there's exhaustive. That's my take, anyway. Boscaswell talk 21:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the most written about albums in history so the long length is unavoidable. Some paragraphs probably could be condensed just slightly. Keep in mind that the article is only 10kB 8kB 5kB bigger than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (FA). ili (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Point, ili, but precendents need not necessarily be followed, if what was done is not justifiable. Two “wrongs” don’t make a right. My opinion? Yes, of course. But aren’t we writing an entry in an encyclopaedia, not another book about the subject? I’d prefer the article to be more accessible than it is, and not so exhaustive. Great that you’re trimming, by the way. Thanks. Best. Boscaswell talk 01:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I intend to cut more around "Background" (that big quote), "Writing Sessions" (half the first and last paragraphs), and "Contents" (various trivia to move into the song articles) when I have the time. It should take off a few more kB. ili (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

in Background section: who replaced Brian Wilson on Beach Boys tours

It has Bruce Johnston. OK, he's the permanent replacement, but wasn't Glen Campbell doing such at the outset? Carlm0404 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Jim Fusilli and Philip Lambert

I'm a novice user on Wikipedia, so I'm open to some advice.

The exact mentions of authors Jim Fusilli and Philip Lambert are confusing, not in that their involvement writing about Pet Sounds isn't clear, but rather which mentions should need embedded links and how much each of their notability ought to be laid out. Jim Fusilli's mention of him authoring the album's entry in 33⅓ doesn't sound appropriate in being listed alongside the second mention of his name. Lambert's name only redirects to the book he's authored, Inside the Music of Brian Wilson, which isn't explicitly mentioned despite it being among the most important books about Pet Sounds' approach to music theory. I'm pondering for the best solution in resolving both issues.

With all due respect, Carlinal (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

2002 tour…Pet Sounds was performed throughout the year

The current wording is, I am sure, incorrect. I saw him perform it with The Wondermints at Sydney's State Theatre in December 2002, and he did the same again the next night. (And yes, it was an incredible night.) As far as I’m aware, he was performing the album throughout the year. Can the existing wording be changed, please? I have no doubt that "three times without an orchestra" is just plain wrong. RS's like MTV are often just blather. Boscaswell talk 08:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fonts in Use

How's Fonts in Use as a reference? The track titles are in Clarendon. https://fontsinuse.com/uses/2474/the-beach-boys-pet-sounds-album-cover Carlinal (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Separate article for the Pet Sounds 5oth Anniversary box set in 2016?

Per the anniversary box set reissues of the Beatles albums (which each have separate pages to the original albums), should there be a separate article for the 50th anniversary box set of Pet Sounds that came out in 2016? 79.66.89.36 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the media sources talking about the box set. If you can find two major sources discussing the box set in depth, then you can satisfy WP:GNG and support an article. Otherwise nope. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain/Cashbox Ad

I normally don't sing praises on/about Wikipedia articles, since I figured they're not usually appropriate. But after the Cashbox ad received a much higher-quality upload the effects it had on Pet Sounds spread to several other Beach Boys-related articles, and it is insanely beautiful. Jesus Christ. To the various editors responsible, thank you. I underestimated how much derivative works can be used from that, especially for an advertisement composed of thirteen very unique images. Same with the various images added in the main Beach Boys article. I'll learn the best I can from this. And bless the public domain. Thank you again. Carlinal (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Some useful references

I'm unsure on how to list potentially useful references, so I'm gonna list them here in the hopes that someone will notice.

1. Lost Paperwork to Blame for “Pet Sounds” Meager Sales Numbers. Boehlert, Eric. Rolling Stone, March 10, 2000. Retrieved June 2, 2023.
2. Paul McCartney Comments, AlbumLinerNotes.com. Retrieved June 2, 2023.

Carlinal (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

3. Liner notes from 1990 CD release; could be used for perceived storyline Carlinal (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

acclaimedmusic.net - no longer gets a mention?

That site is the one for aggregation of critics lists and reviews. The last time I looked at this article it had a mention or two, but now there’s nothing? How come? There[4], it is of course the #1 album of all time, and has been for many years. Please ping me if replying. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 08:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The community agreed that Acclaimed Music is not a reliable source (WP:NOTRSMUSIC). It's a guy in his house collating things with no oversight. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)