Talk:Pet Sounds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Although not a big seller for the band originally?"

This album reached #10 on the charts. Although not as successful as previous albums, I would hardly call it "not a big seller." This is a perpetuation of the myth that Pet Sounds sold poorly. It was a top ten 10 album with hit singles. It just wasn't a #1 album like some of their previous records.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just US/UK?

The articles on the Beach Boys' albums are very good, but the mentioning of just US and UK chart positions is frustrating. 165.146.150.108 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well for the most part that is all that is available, but if you have any other chart positions then put them in the articles

Voted 'best' etc.

Also, their positions in those depressing lists of best albums is pretty irrelevant. Perhaps just a mention that they are highly regarded, if they are. If anyone really wants the lists mentioned, they could be footnotes. 165.146.150.108 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Font on the cover

Anyone knows the name of the famous font used on the cover? -- 70.132.133.131 18:46, 17 December 2006

Cooper Black. -- Mattbrundage 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan and George Martin Quotes:

I used Brian Wilson's actual site as a source for both quotes since they may be found there. The Dylan quote is listed as sourced in Wikiquote (to Newsweek in 1997). A check shows that Dylan was interviewed in the October 6, 1997 issue of Newsweek, but I do not have the means to affirm that this was said in that interview.

If Brian's own site is not to be trusted as a source, then by all means revert to the citation needed version of the page.

LightningMan 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Can we remove the merge tag from this article now? From what I can see there has been no discussion, even though it has been tagged for ages. It seems unlikely that we will get any consensus.Mumby 10:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Group members

Could we split the personnel into group members and others? I'm trying to enter the 40th Anniversary edition into my CD database and believe it or not I don't know who was in the group at the time :) --kingboyk 13:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I went ahead and broke up the "personnel" section into two parts: band members and session musicians. piper108 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Studios, Hollywood

Can't find much about this on the web... Was it Columbia Pictures (i.e. the film studios), or Columbia Records? --kingboyk 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Recording studio, just down the street from Western.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PetSoundsCover.jpg

Image:PetSoundsCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problems

This article seems littered with NPOV problems in terms of overcomplimentary statements, along with statements that, while they might be true, are unsourced, and would appear POV until sourced. However, these statements are so multiplicitous and so integrated into the article that I'm unsure of how to rewrite without scrapping 50% of the article. - Some examples from the "Recording" section:

• "The deceptive simplicity of Brian's music often veiled the fact that his arrangements were more musically adventurous and complex than one would expect in pop music."
• "...although much of the fine detail in the arrangements was often covered by the group's rich vocal harmonies, Wilson's arrangements ensured that they interacted effectively with the vocal tracks — often to the surprise of the musicians who performed them."
• "... an ensemble that included some highly regarded session musicians..."

TheHYPO 20:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two examples you point out here are pretty obviously biased and would not be appropriate even if they were sourced. The third is largely undisputed; see The Wrecking Crew. —BurnDownBabylon 09:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't dispute it, I don't think a biased comment has to be disputed to be biased. If the Halle Berry article said something like "Halle Berry is regarded as very beautiful" without citation, you could say that few would dispute it, but it still is a comment on public opinion without sourcing. I'm not sure why calling the work "deceptively simple" and "adverturous and more complex than one would expect" would be inappropriate if it was cited that a music critic or two had said so (obviously, rewritten to say something like "it has been called..."), but calling a group of musicians highly regarded doens't even need citation; I believe both are appropriate if cited, and properly worded.

But anyway, these were just three examples I quickly pulled - much of the article is similarly biased.... there are plenty more (also, lots of quotes are uncited and don't say where they are from):

• "Sloop John B[...]proved to be a pivotal point in the album's development"
• "The real catalyst for Pet Sounds was the US version of The Beatles' new LP Rubber Soul", which is proven by a quote (uncited) that says he was influenced to do a great album - but it doesn't imply that was the "catalyst"
• "Numerous sources have indicated that Love [... was] taken aback by Brian's new sound" - so where are the sources?
• "Love in particular was nonplussed that Brian had completely thrown the tried-and-true formula [...] out the proverbial window." a) uncited b) not the style of writing that should be in an encyclopedia
• "In fairness, Love had developed into an effective frontman by this time, and he may have recognized that the new material would alienate a portion of their audience, which up to that time had been composed of younger, screaming females." - a) an encyclopedia shouldn't be written "in fairness..." nor is it cited that he was a) effective as a frontman, that the fanbase was screaming females" (I'm sure they weren't 100% screaming or 100% female), nor is it right to have anything in an encyclopedia that says "he may have..."

That's just the first x paragraphs in the article. The whole thing reads like an opinion piece, not an encyclopedia article, and it really needs almost total overhauling. TheHYPO 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me; your criticisms of the present article are quite reasonable. —BurnDownBabylon 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what to do about it; the only thing I can think of is to either copy the entire article to a sub article (/old) on the talk page for reference, and replace it with only a bare article based on straight fact (tracklist, and referencable items) and hope it builds again from there; and I'm not sure if that's the best solution. TheHYPO 05:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi

I removed his review, because I don't find him very professional. He has given many classic albums undeserved low ratings. --James599 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You not agreeing with him doesn't make him unprofessional.Dadaesque (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't work at any magazines. He isn't get payed for what he does. So that makes him unprofessional. Simple as that. --James599 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He is the author of books about the history of rock and he sells them for money. 201.124.163.153 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

dog whistles?

The main section talks about unusual instruments including "dog whistles". I know that Wilson had dogs barking at the end, but "whistles" - does anyone have a reference for this, or can point out where exactly on the album "dog whistles" are used?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock

Anyone else think this sounds like psychedelic rock? God Only Knows the band used enough drugs while recording it. ^Tezkag₇₂ 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pet Sounds is the _______th studio album...

Betty kerner and SamuelMaglor have switched this back and forth between ninth to eleventh a few times. So let's count:

• 1st - Surfin' Safari
• 2nd - Surfin' USA
• 3rd - Surfer Girl
• 4th - Little Deuce Coupe
• 5th - Shut Down Vol. 2
• 6th - All Summer Long
• 7th - The Beach Boys Christmas Album
• 8th - The Beach Boys Today!
• 9th - Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!)
• 10th - Party
• 11th - Pet Sounds

Party counts as a studio album, as it was recorded in a studio, with multiple takes for each song and such.

So I'll change it back to 11th album. MookieZ (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Those were 11 albums (not counting the Christmas one). Maybe in other countries their discography is different, but here the US discography is taken into account.--Betty kerner (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Pop??? It's a poor term for these classical sounds! All sounds of pet sounds are art rock, psychedelic pop, sunshine pop, psychedelic rock, mambo (pet sounds song), baroque pop.... But only pop music? (here today pop?) It's very important to study music! (Mago266 (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't classify this album as 'art rock' and just 'pop' is too general. The album is accurately described as a baroque pop sound, and some songs have a psychedelic feel to them, so psychedelic pop also (since the album is pop-ish). Sunshine pop wouldn't fit this particular album either--other albums certainly, but this album has a more somber feel. (Complex Wisdom) 08:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC

"The Rock Canon: Canonical Values In The Reception Of Rock Albums" and "Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock" both state that the album dose have psychedelic rock and art rock elements. (SgtPetsounds) 14:02, 4 December 2010(UTC))

"J. S. Harrington, Sonic cool: the Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll (Hal Leonard Corporation, 2003), p. 191." says Pet Sounds was the most influential record on 'Baroque Pop.' Complex Wisdom (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

After reading book and web sources, I would be happy to compromise with the genres "Baroque pop", "Psychedelic rock" and "Psychedelic pop" as all three seem to be significant. Not so much "Art rock" as that is generally considered with less mainstream bands, and we may need to have a separate conversation specificity about "Art rock". Hattiethecat1234 (Hattiethecat1234) 14:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul McCartney Quote

The Paul McCartney quote contradicts what is said just above it. In the quote he says that 'You Still Believe in Me' is his favourite song on the album, but above the quote it is said that 'God Only Knows' is his favourite song on the album. 94.192.115.70 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or Pauls' quote seems a little ironic? Maybe he's saying something like "would you really belive I prefer this over my own stuff?". Dont get me wrong. I enjoy both works in a different way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.83.93 (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging 40th Anniversary article into this one

Resolved

Support: The 40th Anniversary release is not notable enough in it's own right to warrant its own article and since it is clearly a release of the same album, all the info pertaining to the re-release should be placed within this article. Having a separate article for a re-release is absurd. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support No reason for it to have it's own article. Not even anything really that unique about it except that they packaged it with a DVD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Did a straight redirect for 2 reasons. 1) The relevent info from the 40th anniversary article is already in this one and 2) The 40th anniversary article has been tagged for a merge (this time) since August 2009 with no objections, and it had previously been tagged for a merge several years ago, and the tag was removed with no evidence of a discussion to do so. --Jayron32 04:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

33:77?

This is pretty self-explanatory. 33:77 can only technically be 34:17. I haven't changed it myself incase the running time is just totally wrong, but someone needs to figure out how long the album is and list it correctly. 33:77 is just confusing. 99.239.176.33 (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian Wilson: did he really play no bass guitar on this record?

Brian had been the bassist earlier. On this album, according to the article, he played lots of instruments but bass is NOT listed. Is this accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.9.50 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Allmusic it says Wilson plays the guitar, but it doesn't say whereabouts we plays it. However, I haven't yet managed to find any information suggesting if he plays the bass. Unlike albums such as Revolver, Pet Sounds is incredibly sketchy in the personnel department. (SgtPetsounds) 10:33, 29 May 2011(UTC))

Well, Brian was regularly using The Wrecking Crew musicians to record The Beach boys' music at this point, while he directed proceedings from the studio control room. So it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't actually play bass on the album. As far as I've always been aware, the lion's share of the bass playing on the album was handled by Carol Kaye, following Brian's directions. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the AFM contracts for this album, the only song Brian played on was "That's Not Me" (organ).Andrew G. Doe (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Allmusic Brian plays piano, keyboards and guitar. It's uncertain if Dennis or Hal Blaine play drums on Thats Not Me and it's also uncertain if Brian plays Hammond or a plain electric organ.(SgtPetsounds) 18:10, 29 May 2011(UTC))

Allmusic is wrong. According to the official American Federation of Musicians contracts, drawn up during the session so that the session players were not only paid properly but had their pension contribution properly deducted, Brian only played on one track, and on that one track he played organ. The same AFM sheet lists Hal Blaine as the drummer. I've been researching The Beach Boys for over 30 years. Look in the Pet Sounds Sessions box set credits - you'll find my name there.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have used denotes for uncertainty because as I said before, it's very sketchy. Allmusic is a incredibly reliable website. (SgtPetsounds) 18:48, 29 May 2011(UTC))

I've just looked at the Allmusic credits, and they're hilariously misleading, mixing the original album with subsequent reissues and no hint as to which is which. Example: Paul Atkinson (ex-Zombies) was executive producer, but on the 1990s reissue program. He had nothing to do with the original album. Also, where are the sources for these credits ? My information comes from the original 1966 musician contracts. You cannot get more first-hand than that. Brian did not play guitar on Pet Sounds. On all the existing session tapes (bar one), he's in the control room, directing the session.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see one of these sources you have. I will agree with you that Brian playing guitar dose sound very strange. (SgtPetsounds) 20:34, 29 May 2011(UTC))

The AFM contract info is in the booklet to The Pet Sounds Sessions box: it's transcribed here (completely accurately - and not by me !) - http://www.albumlinernotes.com/Pet_Sounds_Musicians.html - and FWIW, the only recording where Brian is known to have played guitar was "After The Game", the B side of the "Pamela Jean" single.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would happily compromise between having a denote suggesting that its unlikely that Brian plays guitar or removing the instrument from the list.(SgtPetsounds) 21:49, 29 May 2011(UTC))

I'd just take it out entirely, as the overwhelming evidence is that he didn't (in the past, I've sat through an 8CD box set of the Pet Sounds sessions - correct, not exactly legal - and trust me, he does not play guitar !).Andrew G. Doe (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my two-pence worth to the debate, I would take information presented in the Pet Sounds box set liner notes over anything written on the Allmusic website. Allmusic is a very reliable site and certainly meets the "reliable sources criteria" for Wikipedia, but it's not infallible. Far from it! I've seen numerous silly mistakes on that website over the years. In particular, their discographies are really patchy. I'm not trashing Allmusic here, but when talking about a specific album or band/artist, historical information presented in reliable published literature -- be it books, album liner notes or official websites -- should always be given preference in my opinion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Coca-Coke cans

Internet claims coke cans are used for Caroline, No. There are plastic bottles used for the buoy sound. It sounds exactly like plastic bottles in an echo chamber. Can somebody please change the opening paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.252 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On the instrumental "Pet Sounds", Ritchie Frost plays two empty Coca-Cola cans, at Brian's suggestion. SgtPetsounds(talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Music video

There was a black and white "promotional film" for the whole album, containing brief excerpts of four or five songs, while visually the band members goofed around in the woods wearing masks etc... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That would make a good addition to the page. I will try and find some information about the music video. SgtPetsounds(talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that I've seen it a few times on TheCoolTV... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole in the lead?

Isn't it a bit misleading to have "the album failed to "gold" in its initial release" in the lead? As far as I'm aware, the RIAA requires payment for an audit of record sales and potentially due to tension between Capitol and waning US popularity, Capitol didn't request such a tallying until later on. I'll look for a source to back this up, but as there's a chance this trivia is the result of technicality issue, I think it doesn't really belong in the lead. Jamekae (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ears of a dog"

This quote, albeit not in reference to "Caroline, No" (Only Brian sings on this track), should be reinstated as it was in circulation long before Brian's 'autobiography' was published. A substantial portion of the book is derived from pre-existing published material (usually without accreditation), but that doesn't make it unreliable, except where Gold has put the words of others in Brian's mouth. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll reinstate it, but I think it'd be best if we can back it up with a source that precedes the release of the faux-autobiography. It'd be informative to know the era and the circumstance surrounding the leak of that information. Any idea of where the quote originated from? Jamekae (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Honestly, this album is still semi-surf rock

With songs like Sloop John B and Wouldn't It Be Nice, this album still sort of has that surf rock element that is obvious with a songwriter like Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys. I think many would agree. However, with that said, this is their last album with "surf rock" elements. Their single Do It Again and Good Vibrations also have that vibe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.251.74 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

According to whom? (WP:SUBJECTIVE) Dan56 (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't, members of the group during recording sessions as far back as The Beach Boys Today!, stated that the band wanted to look beyond surf rock, wanting to avoid living in the past or resting on the band's laurels. Brian Wilson, in particular, was focused to progress the boundaries of rock and roll and move on. SgtPetsounds (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

They have special kinds of mental institutions for people that think Good Vibrations is surf rock. There are also institutions for people that think River Deep - Mountain High is big band, or that Here, There and Everywhere is neo-classical.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Also (if only to impart something helpful with substance) as far as I know, Wilson was never ever that interested in surf music. He only based the lyrics of his 1961-65 songs around it, because for one, he wasn't good with words, and for two, he wanted the music to sell. He did do a couple Dick Dale/Venturesque instrumental tracks on the albums preceding Surfer Girl, but after that, nothing. He composed and arranged exclusively in a combined Four Freshmen/Chuck Berry/Phil Spector style of pop/rock music, with minimum influence (if any) from contemporary surf rock acts. With that established, there are no references to beaches, summer, sun, or surfing in the lyrics of Pet Sounds. Therefore, it can hardly be called surf rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Composition analysis

Even though this article is well-devoted to calling the album the apex of pop music, there is very little to convince the reader why or how. I hope somebody with free time can find some analysis or testimony of the album's objective merit from accredited musicologists like how I've attempted with the Smile and Smiley Smile articles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Everett, Walter (2008). The Foundations of Rock. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199718702. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Can't access this book but it seems to have a lot of interesting things to to say.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Questia have this book online here. I don't know if you have a subscription from Wikipedia:Questia, but it gives you access to the complete book. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fusilli pp. 116-17

Can someone with better access to Jim Fusilli's 33⅓ Pet Sounds book find the particular sentence(s) that verify this line about Fusilli characterizing the album as "art rock"? GoogleBooks has no preview of this book ([1]), but Amazon.com does if you sign in ([2]). Nothing about "art rock" appeared on p. 116, and the mention of "art" on p. 117 is in the sentence "...Pet Sounds raises pop to the level of art through its musical sophistication and the precision of its statement..." Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Attributing opinions

He doesn't. The statement's syntax was corrupted from the original which read "Pet Sounds is primarily classified as belonging within varied subgenres of pop and rock, with those naming it a work of ... art rock" followed by the Leaf source which does explicitly call it art rock. The Fusilli source is only relevant in terms of whether Pet Sounds can be classified as "art". It has been restored. I've also fixed the phrasing of the paragraph to make it easier on readers of this article as advised by WP:INTEXT and WP:MNA. Concerning WP:YESPOV, the statement opens with the phrase "Pet Sounds has been characterized as...", which is anything but an opinion. The album has been characterized. So unless there is something deeper to be extrapolated from their statements, there is absolutely no value in going through the names of each and every writer that has characterized the album. Especially when info such as "who" and "where" is already present within the inline citations! If you believe it's an issue of verifiability, the statements wouldn't be present in the first place if they weren't verifiable. See also: WP:BASIC--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the last edit summary (none of the guidelines you asked me to "see also" address why the holder of the opinion shouldn't be noted.) WP:BASIC:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.

Hope this helps.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the statement as it is currently written implies these are widely held views, in which case it would be appropriate to write it that way. Also, if one writer characterizes it as one genre, and another writer another genre, then there is a difference of opinion. Genres are clearly subjective, and the fact that we have different sources calling it something different means there's a difference of opinion. Per WP:ASSERT, "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: 'John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.^[1].'" A current FAC of mine nearing promotion has this method of attribution, no matter how much I believe these genres for Marquee Moon are common interpretations. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the triviality of the topic "psychedelic pop as a genre of this album" is demonstrated by the trouble finding a source to verify it--the only source I could find was a trivial mention of it in some varied column in the Journal Sentinel, so this is trivial coverage. BTW, I was responsible for citing and appropriately attributing the genre statement in the first place ([3]), so perhaps you could abstain from making your change till we discuss this first. Respond, allow me to respond back, etc. before restoring what you feel is the correct revision. If you feel the notability of a person like the Associated Press writer doesn't make his name worth noting, then reduce it to at least the publication/magazine. Jim DeRogatis is clearly notable. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no differences in opinion within the sources cited. There is a book I forget the name of which discounts Pet Sounds as a work of art, but I've yet to integrate its writings. As I've already said, people calling things by names is not an opinion, it's an observation of culture. You would have a case if the syntax read "Pet Sounds is a work of xxx", which is a subjective declaration written objectively.

Yes there are--"psychedelic rock" is a different interpretation of the music than "baroque pop", as is "art rock" a different interpretation from either of those other two, so there is a difference of opinion. You say "people calling things by names"--what people? This isn't made evident by the revision you want. I don't understand what you mean by "observation of culture"--genres are just aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Dan56 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's how definite you want it to be, then you could just easily write "Pet Sounds has been said to contain elements of ..."
"Pet Sounds has been said to be xxx..." is not the same thing as "Pet Sounds is xxx...". The first says that the proceeding statements will be subjective. The second says that the proceeding statements will be objective. It should be plainly understood that everything coming after "Pet Sounds has been characterized as" will be subjective.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Has been said" or whatever are weasel words (Unsupported attributions): "Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint." Dan56 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"However, the examples given above are not automatically weasel words ... views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"The source", not "sources". All those views (psychedelic rock, baroque pop, etc.) were synthesized from multiple sources rather than one reliable source laying out what views have been expressed. An example of a reliable source laying out different views/opinions is one cited in Song of Innocence: "Critics at the time called it 'jazz-rock, baroque-pop.' Others called it psychedelic R&B." A bad example would be stringing along several sources' respective views into one sentence that doesn't exist in any one source (WP:SYNTH); there isn't a source that verifies the sentence "Pet Sounds has been characterized as psychedelic rock, baroque pop, psychedelic pop...", that's just an editor's original research. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH would only be barely relevant if the inline citations were placed at the tail end of the sentence instead of after each individual genre. A string of independent citations is not synthesis. (WP:INTEGRITY)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"...characterized as" is not in any of the sources, and it's a vague claim--without naming by whom, you're misleading readers and creating the impression that this characterization is common rather than just one person who holds that opinion of the album. Dan56 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Pet Sounds has been characterized as," "said to be," "written to contain elements of," "called," "argued," "printed," and so on are not vague, it's innocuous paraphrasing. The sources are offering a descriptor. The descriptor is written within these sources as an opinion of the writers. Therefore, the sources are offered descriptors, which can be written swiftly through prose as independently cited "characterizations", yes, even if the word "characterization" is not verbatim. Whether or not they're widely held opinions doesn't matter because the syntax never even implies that to anyone with basic reading comprehension. I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are insane to take issue with this, and the matter, which is one of writing aesthetic and flow, cannot be resolved without additional input. I'm not even sure how I can restore this source for "psychedelic rock" because the tediousness of "X of Y said Z, while A of B also said Z" is such a pain to write around and is just poor writing style.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of citing Susie Skarl (a librarian?) when we have Jim DeRogatis? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stick to notable individuals for aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Anyone with basic reading comprehension would ask themselves whose opinion it is. Otherwise, without the opinions being "attributed in the text to particular sources," they are "described as widespread views" (WP:YESPOV). Are there any several sources that call this album "baroque pop" or "psychedelic pop", or just the two currently cited? Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize Skarl was just a librarian. But really? You still don't understand that syntax affects the presentation of subjective and objective material in order to make it a neutral POV? The statement "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil[citation]" imparts the same objective information as "genocide has been described as the epitome of human evil[citation]". I've already explained why. Both are objective statements about subjective things. It's unfortunate that there aren't many sources detailing the genre of this album, but perhaps it's a good thing, because then half of the article would be spent namechecking every single person who offered their own combination of descriptors."John A and Bob B called Pet Sounds baroque pop, while Richard C called the album psychedelic, while Jane D and Matt E called the album psychedelic rock, while Luke F called the album psychedelic pop, while Adam G called the album psychedelic and baroque, while Edd H called the album psychedelic rock and baroque pop, while Tom I called the album baroque pop and psychedelic, while Johnny J called the album baroque pop, psychedelic pop, and psychedelic rock, while Sid K called the album psychedelic pop and baroque pop, while Arnold L called the album folk rock, while Suzie Q called the album folk rock and psychedelic rock and psychedelic pop and baroque pop, while Joseph M called the album psychedelic pop and folk rock, while . . ." Good lord.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the case--if there were that many notable critics or writers who offered those kind of aesthetic opinions, then that discussion/diversity of opinions itself would have been documented by a source that said what you are trying yourself to put together and that could be cited, i.e. "Pet Sounds has been described by critics as psychedelic rock...". I have no problem offering that kind of summary in the lead where there shouldn't be citations ideally, but the body should be more thorough. I don't agree that leaving out names of notable individuals holding those opinions is objective or subjective--it's just vague writing, especially with only three or four sources/writers explicitly saying it's an album of some kind/genre. When something is being described, then there's obviously a person describing that something, and readers shouldn't be burdened to chase after cluttered citations to see whose opinion it really is. Citation clutter also calls into question the notability of the statement's topic, since it suggests an attempt to make something more notable than it really is (WP:CITECLUTTER): "Try to construct passages so that an entire sentence or more can be cited to a particular source, instead of having sentences that each require multiple sources." Right now, there are three sources for three interpretations, condensed to two simple sentences that shouldn't make it less readable. If there is another source that interprets the album as "baroque pop" or whatever, then if it's a more notable/relevant source than the Associated Press, it can replace it. If a notable person offers the characterization, it makes it a more reliable read than "vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority". Dan56 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about trivial coverage. You're misinterpreting the style guide, however. It's not the triviality of the source, it's the triviality of mentioning the source. Jim DeRogatis is a notable source, but is he so notable that he must be taken outside of his inline citation? Now that is a matter of opinion. There is no depth of coverage in "John Doe said the baseball game was fun, Jane's Honda said the baseball game was exciting, The Joe Michelangelo Weekly said the baseball game was cool, Ronald McDoggerson said the baseball game was tasty". It's tedious and obstructs content. Let it just be "The baseball game is said to have been fun, exciting, cool, and tasty". Wikipedia specifically states that "redundancy in an article should be kept to a minimum". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The current revision is clearly better prose-wise than "he said, she said". And the notability guideline for people has nothing to do with whether the individual holding an opinion should be named--Wikipedia:Notability (people) is for bio articles, and the fact that DeRogatis is a relevant source on this topic and has his own article shouldn't bring in to question whether he is a notable individual or not. How about revising it further to avoid tedious prose, like this? Dan56 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Original research

Nothing in the AllMusic source you cited says Pet Sounds is baroque pop--it says one song on the album has a "baroque pop thrust" (the writer is characterizing its "thrust", whatever that is, not the album). Even though the Plunderphonics book has an entry at GoogleBooks, none of it comes up when I search "baroque pop" "pet sounds", so it begs the question: what's the quote from page 214? Again, "largely viewed" is an unsupported attribution and weasel word (no source says that). That's the point of an "attribution" (largely viewed = many people) being "unsupported" (you need to cite a source that verifies exactly that wording, otherwise it's questionable, challengeable, and leads to overwrought discussions like this. Dan56 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No issues here. The Plunderphonics source was taken from God Only Knows. But I'm wondering why you surreptitiously moved the Unterberger folk rock source all the way down to "critical reception", where the song's genre bears undue weight. And Unterberger isn't even mentioned in text, even though he's the only one to call the song folk rock! What happened?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have rather removed it altogether, since him calling one song (that already has an article of its own) a particular genre has nothing to do with an album of 13 songs (all of which have their own articles). It's not as if he characterizes the album as one thing, then adds a qualifier like "but this song is...", and his article/source makes no mention of Pet Sounds, which should suggest it's not the best source on this article's topic. There's no reason to content fork his characterization of one song, since it's already cited at Sloop John B. Dan56 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so do we continue with the U.S. version of Rubber Soul?

OK, we see that Brian Wilson became interested in Rubber Soul album, and then we see:

"The British version of Rubber Soul was edited prior to its release in the US to emphasise a folk rock feel that critics attributed to Bob Dylan and the Byrds."

So does the rest of the paragraph refer to the U.S. version? Because of record-company repackaging, the U.S. Rubber Soul seems to mark a sharp change in the Beatles' sound, but going from the British "Help!" album to the British "Rubber Soul" album is not as sharp of a change; see comments on the talk page for the Rubber Soul album (Beatles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here and how it pertains to the article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just seen the Love and Mercy film about Brian Wilson, with another mention of Rubber Soul. Presumably, when Brian Wilson picks up this influence of Rubber Soul as he's making what would be Pet Sounds, he had the U.S. version of Rubber Soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an interview with Brian Wilson where he is asked directly about which version and he responded "the U.S. version." If that source can be located then maybe the ambiguous language in this section can be clarified. Piriczki (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Found it here

E.C.: When you listened to RUBBER SOUL by the Beatles, was it the American version of the album or the British version?
Brian Wilson: The American.

Piriczki (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pet Sounds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100113103011/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/back-catalogue/52789/pet-sounds.html to http://www.blender.com/guide/back-catalogue/52789/pet-sounds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Psychedelic => progressive pop rationale

According to several sources, Pet Sounds is notable for its contribution to the development of progressive rock. Several more sources note that, on release, it was heralded as "the most progressive pop album ever". Since the two terms were once interchangeable, progressive pop seems to hold more weight than "psychedelic pop", which has only two sources. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Silly Question

Can someone Name the Beach Boys from Left to right of the album cover please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.190.194 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl Wilson, Brian Wilson, Dennis Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! my original UK pressing of Pet Sounds came today! I have spent 11 years overlooking The Beach Boys, been too absorbed by Queen, Bowie, Beatles, Zeppelin etc. Kempee (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pet Sounds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090222124723/http://brianwilson.com:80/brian/musicians.html to http://www.brianwilson.com/brian/musicians.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

use of tagging in the section "Recording and production"

@Ilovetopaint: I'm kinda surprised as the level of tagging you've applied in this article, in the Pet Sounds#Recording and production section, as at Baroque pop. I've raised this issue in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Clarification on tagging articles re verifiability issues, hoping or thinking there might be a relevant guideline. Please feel free to join the discussion – and everyone else should too, of course. (I've posted something at Talk:Baroque pop, also). JG66 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mojo poll

@Ilovetopaint: I don't understand what you're on about. Where in that source is a 2007 Mojo list in which Pet Sounds appeared in first place? Come to think of it, where in that source is there anything to support wording in the second statement "a panel of top musicians, songwriters and producers assembled by MOJO"? JG66 (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I misread that page. I'll fix the sources.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"the most progressive pop album ever"

In the Lead we currently have: "In the United Kingdom, the album was lauded by critics who declared it 'the most progressive pop album ever' …" (By the way, it should be "the most progressive pop album ever"; it doesn't make sense to say "the most [name of genre] album ever".) And then under Critical response: "it was named by many British publications as the most progressive pop album of all time". The latter is cited to Leaf pp. 76, 87–88 and Gilliand.

I don't believe critics actually expressed this opinion in their reviews (and if they did, did they all use the same phrase?!). It seems much more likely that it's a tagline that Derek Taylor and/or Andrew Oldham came up with, which Melody Maker then responded to. In his book The Beach Boys' Smile, Luis Sanchez says only: "By July, advertisements in the U.K. pop press were pronouncing Pet Sounds the "Most Progressive Pop Album Ever!" I can't access Leaf but Jann Wenner, in the Gilliand piece we cite (track 4 here), also talks about advertisements in the British "trades" carrying this slogan. Rock's Backpages has the Melody Maker piece that's referred to under Critical response: [4]. It reads as if they're responding to the claim, by asking other musicians.

Our sentence under "United Kingdom EMI release" appears to dismiss the promo angle for the slogan ('I'm assuming it's referring to the same advertisements): "Although it has been claimed that the Rolling Stones manager Andrew Oldham helped Derek Taylor publicize unsolicited advertisements lauding the album in British music papers, a search of the UK pop press for 1966 fails to uncover any such advertisement." Firstly, that seems an odd statement for us to be making – it seems more appropriate to credit someone with having made the search, or to name an author who has dismissed the idea. The sources for this sentence were a BBC Music review (now removed – it didn't support it at all) and Fusilli p. 111. Can anyone confirm Fusilli …? But anyway, as with Leaf above, I think there's good reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement. I'll certainly fix the statements attributed to Wenner – he clearly says that it was British fans who were saying the Beach Boys were "years ahead" of the Beatles and Wilson was a genius. JG66 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Leaf explicitly says "British rock newspapers were hailing Pet Sounds as the most progressive pop album ever" (not fans or advertisements). "Progressive pop" is a term that describes an unmistakable form of pop music, same as if someone wrote "the most progressive rock album ever". The fact that advertisements bore the slogan would not contradict Leaf's claim.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on both points. And I'm somewhat surprised, given how thoroughly you've tagged sources for verification here and elsewhere, that you missed the inaccuracies where Gilliand was being used to support the statement that British critics called the album "the most progressive pop album ever" and for where Wenner apparently said critics rated the Beach Boys "years ahead" of the Beatles. So, where is Leaf getting his facts? Where are some quotes from these reviews that all apparently used the phrase "Most Progressive Pop Album Ever"? What it is, is a (genius) Derek Taylor press campaign, possibly via Oldham. And I think you know that.

Having just looked back through the article's history, I can see I'm not the only editor who has disagreed with your interpretation of progressive pop in that quote. Another thing I found was that the sentence about "a search of the UK pop press for 1966 fails to uncover any such advertisement" carried an OR tag from October 2009 until this change in April 2011 – supposedly supporting the statement with the BBC Music review mentioned above. JG66 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but I only misheard Wenner's statements. And I knew there was more left to be desired for the article in terms of how the album was promoted. But I don't believe it's totally unthinkable that critics at the time did also agree, "yes, the hype is true, this is the most 'progressive pop' album ever". The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Also, I recognized that maybe linking prog pop in that quote does violate WP:MOS. Since I'm not really sure, I reverted it back. But they most definitely refer to the same thing. The issue of whether a writer means 'progressive pop' or ''progressive' pop' is contrived and you can extend that logic to cherrypick and discount almost anything written about genres like psychedelic pop, baroque pop, etc. What "progressive" means in that text obviously refers to musical advancement. It's not like a piece that calls something "industrial rock" because it was created in a factory, or "harsh noise" for sounds that contain provocative language. "Progressive music" never refers to anything except music that is boundary-breaking: the core principle of progressive pop/progressive rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you draw a connection with this issue and coverage of the album's promotion per se ("I knew there was more left to be desired for the article in terms of how the album was promoted"). I'm talking about how you seem to be opting for as glorious an outcome as possible for the UK critical reception. Any responsible editor would see that while Leaf says one thing (according to you), biographers such as Gaines and Granata make no mention of it when describing the warm UK critical reception to Pet Sounds, and Sanchez and the quote from Wenner only refer to the slogan as a UK advertising tagline. Add to that the tone of the Melody Maker piece I mentioned. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" – how convenient for you. If you were really interested in presenting this album with as balanced a viewpoint as possible, I suggest you'd realise that Leaf probably got the wrong end of the stick in the 1970s, as I've found many rock biographers from that era often did, relative to what's been unearthed and debunked in the decades since then. And I can't help thinking you were looking for a reliable source (i.e. not a promotional campaign) to support the album's progressive pop credentials. You recently found one, so the need to milk the "most progressive pop album ever" statement for all its worth has diminished in that regard.

Going back to your adoption of it as a summary of what UK critics said, I just see this as part of your quest to celebrate Brian Wilson to the max on Wikipedia and, not coincidentally, ensure that the Beatles' impact is reduced. You "misheard" Wenner's words, and at two articles now I've seen you overlook a statement that Revolver was inspired by Pet Sounds when the source (Rolling Stone) clearly mentions just one Beatles song. So again, given how fussy you've been about auditing statements and sources, especially those in Beatles articles, and applying verification needed/failed tags: I'm a little bit surprised those two examples happened to slip through quality control. You think the Rubber Soul influence shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead here because it's "overstated" and "misleading fluff", yet every commentator mentions it and Wilson has rarely not mentioned it – I've got plenty more quotes from him on that. You insisted that the text in the Sgt. Pepper article mention the Pet Sounds influence from no less than four different sources, even though it was abundantly clear already (and FWIW, I do think Pet Sounds should be mention in the Lead at Pepper). And you decided that the Beach Boys' influence on the White Album just had to be added in the Lead there, even though it applies to only one track out of 30 … You've removed a perfectly adequately sourced statement on the influence of the Beatles' collarless suits on Mod culture in Britain, from Cultural impact of the Beatles; and whereas at that same Beatles article you've been ultra-discerning about not reiterating points that sources make, at Cultural impact of the Beach Boys, you've been happy to fudge one source's claim and even adopt the most unreliable of sources to inflate the Beach Boys' estimated sales. All in all, I can't help thinking you're the last one any of us here should trust (WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:WEIGHT) when it comes to the Beach Boys and the Beatles. JG66 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right on a lot of those points, but not all. In the last couple of years, I found that, in terms of historical representation and deserved credit, Wikipedia gave the Beach Boys the short end of the stick while the Beatles have bit off more than their fair share. About two or three years ago, the Sgt. Pepper article didn't even have a single reference to Pet Sounds on it. In an effort to correct these glaring omissions, I've more than likely made a few missteps of my own. Of course I don't want to overstate anything regarding any band's impact, and of course, I'm much more interested in the American boys rather than the English lads. So it will definitely seem that way. Please do correct mistakes you find.

On Rubber Soul,

In the article's body, Phil Spector is mentioned four more times than the Beatles (15:11). Wilson explicitly stated that the album's title is a "tribute" to Spector, an "extension" of his music, and a conceptually unified work based on his production methods. In other accounts, he clarifies: "No, the Beatles didn't influence me." In light of this, I could just as easily accuse of you WP:TENDENTIOUS, I mean, it's pretty damning how crucial Spector is to the album. And I actually did add him to the lead at one point. I took him off later after some consideration, because I realized he doesn't really need to be mentioned. He didn't have much to do with the album directly, only his Wall of Sound methods, and the total, direct significance of Spector on the album can be effectively summarized with eight words, that the album is "unified by Wall of Sound-style production techniques". Doesn't need more elaboration than that.

In the case of the Beatles, you have to be very careful how you word "Pet Sounds was inspired by Rubber Soul" because that in itself doesn't mean anything, and so it begs for elaboration ("Why is that fact so notable when it's evident that Pet Sounds was inspired/influenced much more by Spector, Bacharach, and possibly Martin Denny?"). The more you think about what Rubber Soul means to Pet Sounds, the more trivial it seems to become. Sources in the article already state that the two albums don't sound anything alike. Wilson said the album wasn't an influence. Pet Sounds was already halfway-written by the time Rubber Soul came out. You can't even really say that the album was the sole catalyst for Wilson to start thinking about LPs as an artistic statement – he was already beginning to do that early 1965. The fact that most sources include the "Rubber Soul inspired Pet Sounds" factoid is because, as I've said, it's trivia fluff to make the Beach Boys look more important to regular people who don't know why they should care about a surfing boy band from two hundred years ago. It goes hand in hand with "Pet Sounds influenced Sgt. Pepper" – that trivia is also included in just about every single article on Pet Sounds ever written, but it's not worth noting in the lead, is it really? In recent years, Wilson has become so robotic and apathetic on the subject that even he's started to reduce Pet Sounds to "Yeah, Rubber Soul blew me out so much, it gave me 'God Only Knows', and that gave them Sgt. Pepper" for his routine 10-minute press interviews.

There is an article I recall reading about Wilson and artists in general, about how people love to fantasize that a person's "genius" or their most acclaimed masterwork emerges only after a single important event. In real life, "genius" develops gradually after hard work, and it can't be attributed to any one specific catalyst. This perfectly applies to the popular misconception of Rubber Soul and its role in the creation of Pet Sounds. Hyperbolic, inflated, overstated, exaggerated. But not completely. There is something to be said about it. In fact, there's five or six sentences in the body concerning the topic.

What exactly did Rubber Soul do for Pet Sounds, again? According to Wilson, it inspired him (many records did) and it sort of made him want to create an album without filler tracks. OK, so is that worth putting in the lead? Maybe, it depends on how it's worded for conciseness and accuracy. Definitely not disinformation like this: "Wilson intended the album as an answer to the Beatles' 1965 release Rubber Soul." Wilson has, if anything, rejected this notion. It makes it seem like Pet Sounds was "based on" the album – it wasn't. I suggest if you really, really wanted to put Rubber Soul in the lead, you should start with putting Pet Sounds in the lead for Sgt. Pepper. But is it really necessary? If it's controversial that Sgt. Pepper's lead contain a mention of Pet Sounds – in spite of every account McCartney, Martin, and Emerick have given on the impact of Pet Sounds on Pepper – then I find it amazing that a Rubber Soul mention in Pet Sounds could merit discussion. Freak Out! influenced Pepper too, shouldn't that album also get lead recognition?

I don't think any of these albums need to be in any of each other's leads. They are linked in a small way, yes, but they aren't partnered together. They aren't the Berlin Trilogy.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to view Wikipedia as a big sugary cake whereby artists and their work should be assigned helpings of acclaim and recognition according to what you choose to variously inflate or ignore. Your statements on Rubber Soul as an influence on/inspiration for (whatever one calls it) make no sense whatsoever. You've opted for that Wilson comment, "No, the Beatles didn't influence me", as the gospel on this issue. I've got his foreword to the Mojo Special Edition on the Beatles' psychedelic period, and his 1987 interview with Rolling Stone marking the 20th anniversary of that magazine. In both those sources, he doesn't stint in acknowledging the Beatles' influence on his own music from the minute they arrived in the US, and particularly Rubber Soul as his impetus for Pet Sounds. So many third party sources – reviewers and Beach Boys biographers – view the album as Wilson's "answer" to Rubber Soul, his attempt to "top" the Beatles, etc. It's not for you to analyse the issue and choose to ignore that level of coverage. I can appreciate that with some rock "myths" one does need to; but that's when, say, there are contradictory reports and/or when it's patently impossible that something could have taken place. "Pet Sounds was already halfway-written by the time Rubber Soul came out" – that's crap.

But let's be clear, I'm not necessarily insisting that the Rubber Soul connection be mentioned in the Lead; I'm raising this as an example of how you continually diminish the Beatles' standing in WIkipedia articles wherever you can and pump up the Beach Boys/Brian Wilson legacy. Above, you compare the Rubber Soul–Pet Sounds connection to that of Pet Sounds–Sgt. Pepper: you say it's "trivia" and that albums by the two bands over this period "are linked in a small way … but they aren't partnered together." Right … And so you added yet more on the importance of Pet Sounds at Pepper: "The interplay between the Beatles and the Beach Boys thus inextricably links the two albums together." Meaning, you're always keen to see the WIlson influence on the Beatles underlined but looking to minimise any statements in the other direction. You're just digging yourself deeper into the mire, as far as I can see. JG66 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it. I've added the Carys Wyns Jones Pepper statement to both articles because I thought yet another reference to the Beatles would appease your concerns. I even went so far as to minimize it inside a footnote at the Pepper article. If you want to make a real case for the Beatles' supposedly diminutive coverage, then PROVE IT. You're free at any time to match Cultural impact of the Beatles with Cultural impact of the Beach Boys. There are numerous reliable sources for just about every innovation and trend they ever made, aren't there?

Because there are inconsistent accounts of the Rubber Soul–Pet Sounds connection between first-, second-, and third-party sources is the core point for why it shouldn't be in the lead. The only definite statement on the matter you can find is that Wilson did not want to do filler tracks after he heard Rubber Soul. Anything else is flakey. It doesn't matter how many sources you put together that say Wilson intended Rubber Soul as an answer to Pet Sounds, or that he meant to "outdo" anyone with Pet Sounds, because there are also numerous sources to the contrary. For Sgt. Pepper, many tertiary sources also repeat that Pet Sounds was an influence, but most first- and second-parties limit the influence to McCartney. So to say that "the Beatles were influenced by Pet Sounds" is a hefty, not-well-supported claim. I am not purposely trying to stamp out or undervalue the Beatles. These issues apply to both sides.

For every rock critic that has ever written:

“ Brian Wilson's mind was blown. In an effort to record an album that would top Rubber Soul, Wilson realized he would need a new songwriting partner to help him achieve his mushrooming ambitions. ”

There's a Wilson account that says:

“ I think [Tony Asher] played it for me. When I heard Rubber Soul, I said, 'That's it. I really am challenged to do a great album.' Not to try to out-do Rubber Soul 'cause nobody can out-do Rubber Soul it's a thing of its own. But you can do your own thing. You don't have to panic and say, 'I can't do as good as the Beatles' you know." ... It's like none of us looked back. Tony and I did not look back to [Phil] Spector. We went forward, kind of like on our own little wavelength. It wasn't like we were thinking, 'Okay, let's beat Spector,' let's out-do Motown. ”

A Rubber Soul–Pet Sounds–Sgt. Pepper continuum exists. But it's contrived. A little bit in the same way as if I were to inject the Sgt. Pepper article with references to Smile. (Here are just a few sources that compare them, by the way: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Maybe it's something that should be done? Probably not by me though, since I'm a mindless Beach Boys fanboy who disregards neutral viewpoints.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Genre notes

Here's a current rundown of genre citations:

• 3 — Psychedelic rock
• 3 — Art rock
• 2 — Progressive pop
• 2 — Psychedelic pop
• 2 — Folk rock
• 2 — Emo
• 1 — Experimental pop
• 1 — Experimental rock
• 1 — Baroque pop
• 1 — Symphonic rock

I skipped everything that only says the album "inspired", "invented", or "led to" a particular style — this is straight up every source that explicitly says "Pet Sounds is a [genre] album". That makes 10 calls for rock, 5 for pop, 5 for psychedelic, and 2 for experimental. Additionally, there are 4 instances in the article where the album is simply called "progressive", 3 instances relating it to "psychedelic music", and 3 where it is simply referred to as "art" or "arty". So, based on that, this is how I'd weigh the infobox genres:

• 3 — Psychedelic rock
  • 3 — psychedelic; 10 — rock
• 3 — Art rock
  • 3 — art; 10 — rock
• 2 — Progressive pop
  • 4 — progressive; 5 — pop

Personal opinion: I don't think "baroque pop" should be in the infobox, if only because all of the album's "baroque pop" is contained within "God Only Knows", "You Still Believe in Me", and some parts of "I'm Waiting for the Day". That's hardly enough to classify the entire work in the genre.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Addendum

Since May 23, the sources for "progressive pop" have upped slightly. Here is the current lineup of sources (some not included in article because of overcite):

• "... Pet Sounds established the group as forefathers of progressive pop ..." [11]
• "... his progressive pop masterpiece ..." [12]
• "... the most progressive pop album ever ..." [13] [14] [15] [16]

On the issue of operative adjectives: does "progressive pop" describe "progressive pop"? How about this: does "punk rock" describe "punk rock"? Somehow I don't feel as though that question would merit discussion; I'd bet nobody would raise complaints if the source said "the most psychedelic pop album ever". "Progressive" is not just an adjective; it can be used as a noun (see "progressives"). It's not like they're calling it a "pop album that's progressive" - then I could see an argument there. But they're literally calling Pet Sounds "progressive pop", the most progressive pop album at that. When we look at what generally defines "progressive pop", there is clearly nothing outrageous or controversial about the attribution.

The issue of "which genres get to go in the infobox" pertains to WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGELEVEL. We currently only have one source for "baroque pop", which is less than "emo" and "folk rock". Obviously, listing Pet Sounds as an "emo album" or a "folk rock album" would be highly controversial. If some people really really really wanted Pet Sounds to be known as a baroque pop album despite the small number of sources - while also discounting "most progressive pop" - then I'd suggest this arrangement as a compromise: "Rock, pop, progressive, psychedelic, art rock". Right now, I think the current arrangement is perfect.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Grand claims

I think we need to revisit the sources and/or qualify some of the claims made in the article about Pet Sounds setting trends and precedents in rock/pop. At least, if we're to be consistent with the toning down that was applied at the Sgt. Pepper article early this year. I'm currently working on the Rubber Soul and Revolver articles, and have come across the same claims regarding prog rock's inspiration/foundation and music to be listened to (as opposed to music for dancing) applied to Rubber Soul as are given here, judging by the wording in the Lead anyway ("the album signaled an aesthetic trend within rock by transforming it from dance music into music that was made for listening to"). Ditto for Rubber Soul having set a trend for pop artists to focus on creating albums, rather than simply collections of songs around a couple of quality singles – another "first" that seems to be credited to Pet Sounds. The Lead's next point, from Bill Martin, is pretty much exactly what Walter Everett credits Rubber Soul with having inspired. In fact, checking Martin's text, the quote is being used out of context to some extent: he credits both the Beach Boys and the Beatles, without any mention of particular albums, as having "brought expansions in harmony, instrumentation (and therefore timbre), duration" etc, and Pet Sounds is then discussed as a "turning point". I've spotted a few things in the main body that I can see need fixing, but it would be great if someone who has perhaps not been heavily involved with the article could check the many similar claims.

I appreciate that sources often seem a bit blinkered – an author makes a grand statement, and we can't really argue with how they see it. But it's the level to which we then acknowledge and validate such statements: whether we present them as if they're fact. Obvious examples would be items appearing in the Lead, whether paraphrased or quoted, but it applies throughout the article, of course. Put it this way: if we don't address it here, then there seems no reason not to revert the big claims at Sgt. Pepper back to how they were presented in February. JG66 (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think there ought to be a few footnotes with some of the same claims that have been leveled for Rubber Soul. As for the quotes you removed, I don't find anything outrageous about these statements:

• "so many rock bands took it as a green light to get clever — to start playing with the time signatures, to go prog. You know, "Let’s put a french horn in there!" Before you know it, you’ve got Queen."
• "[The Beach Boys] were one of the first bands to really take that step into the wild world of pushing instruments past their intention and making instruments out of things not intended for music in the slightest."

I don't know how you can argue with this. They're saying one of the first, not the first. And it's worth keeping it, because people tend to write in vague terms like "the album was groundbreaking" or "it set a new standard". We already have variations of these claims elsewhere in the article - but none of them are as direct and on-point. "Pet Sounds went into uncharted territory", "Pet Sounds made groups more experimental". Well, how exactly? The more specific, the better.

FYI, I am not against having material in the article that disputes the significance of Pet Sounds. It's just hard to find writers who talk about it.

Don’t get me wrong. The songs on Pet Sounds are great, but you have to wonder, given all the hype and mythology and our love of shallow nostalgia, what we mean when we call it a classic or Wilson a genius. Consider what Zappa was doing in 1966, to say nothing of Miles. Wilson’s high reputation is evidence of our obsession with childlike innocence and the victory of boring poptimism. [17]

I thought this was an opinion that was worth including somewhere in the article, but I couldn't figure out how or where. Maybe you can.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't help but be highly sceptical about your input. You seem to feel the need to promote Brian Wilson to an embarrassing degree, often misinterpreting source material along the way, but always somehow in the Beach Boys' favour. By "embarrassing" I mean that it's not just in Beach Boys/Wilson articles, but Beatles and music genre articles also. So I'll be checking the sources here, and I hope somebody else will too.

I don't agree that those comments from Gang of Four and Sorority Noise, via the Consequence of Sound piece, belong here at all, although the first quote is a darn sight better without the, well, utterly ignorant intro: "Clearly, The Beatles learnt 90% of what they did in the mid-to-late ‘60s from this album." Who are these people (who the hell are Sorority Noise, full stop??) to be treated as some sort of experts in the field of musical analysis? Seems to me that if we're accepting a muso's view on an album and presenting it under the guise of a musical attribute of the work, then there's no end of Mojo features on the Beatles, Stones, Who, Small Faces etc, full of Britpop and later-era "attichood" towards everyone and everything (even dear Brian), that we should be sourcing for similar opinions. I can accept insight or recollection from a contemporary of the artists, or from a latter-day musician who's pretty notable. But this just reeks of desperation. Pet Sounds is a major work, so why on earth are we scraping the barrel?

And what did you mean by "worst things said are about the Beatles and sampling"? The Beatles, with "Tomorrow Never Knows", are credited with pioneering in pop music what became known as sampling, but no one denies that tape loops (and backwards sounds) had been used in other forms of music for a decade or more.

You've made a point of purging articles of unsourced text yet, since November 2014, a large portion of text at the end of Engineering here has remained unsourced and carries a cite-needed tag. Why is that? It's been over two years – it should go. Also, there's no reason to have the non-free image of Carl Wilson in the article: nothing even remotely serves as commentary to support its inclusion. JG66 (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the section Pet Sounds#Influence and legacy, particularly the last paragraph, it really strikes me as puffery. Not so much in what is said but in who is saying it. The whole paragraph appears to be the product of someone blindly googling for something, anything positive said by anyone about Pet Sounds. Who are these people and why do their opinions matter? If wikilinks were added the paragraph would look like this:

Newsmakers' Louise Mooney Collins believes that Pet Sounds "helped define the genre known as 'chamber pop' — intimate, precisely arranged songs with rock's sweep but without its bluesy clamor." Treblezine's Ernest Simpson and Wild Nothing's Jack Tatum characterize it as the first emo album. Cleveland.com's Troy Smith says that the album "established the group as forefathers of progressive pop, right from the beginning chords of 'Wouldn't It Be Nice'." Frank Oteri called it a "clear precedent" to the birth of album-oriented rock and progressive rock. Writer Bill Martin felt that it aided in the development of progressive rock at a time when the Beach Boys "brought expansions in harmony, instrumentation (and therefore timbre), duration, rhythm, and the use of recording technology". It is viewed by David Leaf as a herald of the art rock genre, while Jones specifically locates it to the genre's beginning. Uproxx's Chris Morgan said that it "basically invent[ed] chamber pop, prog rock, psych rock, and art rock".

Who is Louise Mooney Collins? Can anyone say? Who is Troy Smith? I can answer that one. He writes about entertainment and pop culture (music, movies, television, WWE wrestling, etc.) for Cleveland.com, a crappy online version of the city's daily newspaper which has become a joke locally. He is certainly not a music critic and his opinion on anything certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Who is Chris Morgan? It appears he writes more about sports than music. The legitimacy of these quotes is such a reach that it only weakens the claims being made. That paragraph should be junked and replaced with content from known music critics, musicologists or music historians. Piriczki (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If awkwardly-placed attribution is the issue and not the stated claims, then the text should be paraphrased, not removed. Please be so kind as to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I just explained that these are the most specific enumerations of the album's legacy and influence that I could find. Yes, that's right, nobody like Robert Christgau ever discusses Pet Sounds' contribution to chamber pop. You would be surprised how much hasn't been written about Pet Sounds (at least by academics, music critics, historians, etc). Also, Bill Martin has an article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of what Piriczki is saying. You've removed mention of many of the commentators, but the issue was whether such claims carry any weight coming from those sources. In your comment above you've actually hit on the problem: "Yes, that's right, nobody like Robert Christgau ever discusses Pet Sounds' contribution to chamber pop. You would be surprised how much hasn't been written about Pet Sounds (at least by academics, music critics, historians, etc)." Well, if that's the case – if the album hasn't received recognition at that sort of level – then its influence and groundbreaking qualities are being overstated. It strikes me that the description of Influence and legacy as being "the product of someone blindly googling for something, anything positive said by anyone about Pet Sounds" applies to the overall tone of the article. The lead, for instance, asserts: "A heralding work of psychedelic rock, the album signaled an aesthetic trend within rock by transforming it from dance music into music that was made for listening to, elevating itself to the level of art rock." [my emphasis] I'm sure that some sources used in the article might support this, but Rubber Soul is widely credited with starting that trend, and it was released in December 1965. The inclusion of "signaled an aesthetic trend" etc in the Lead is an example of what I was saying above – "it's the level to which we then acknowledge and validate such statements: whether we present them as if they're fact." It's obviously incorrect to imply that Pet Sounds initiated this development, in the Lead. JG66 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

re: Rubber Soul and albums Yes, I already said that there is an argument for Rubber Soul revolutionizing the album format. There's an argument for Pet Sounds as well. Sources contradict each other. Add some footnotes that clarify this, as has been done on Sgt. Pepper.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Fuck's sake. So the statement in the Lead that the album "signaled an aesthetic trend …" – signaled – needs to go, because a precedent was clearly set by the release of Rubber Soul with regard to rock/pop's "transition from dance music into music that was made for listening to". The fact that this appears in the Lead implies that it's a fact. If it stays as is, then there's absolutely no reason for not reinstating the misguided statements that you objected to at Sgt. Pepper. JG66 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How does "the album signaled a trend" equate to "the album initiated a trend"? Do you know what the word "signaling" means? It's not a synonym of "pioneer" or "inventor". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking in my Collins Dictionary, I get a second definition for "signal": 2 anything that acts as an incitement to action: the rise in prices was a signal for rebellion. In the article's lead, straight after the mention of "a heralding work" (not to mention "trend", "helping it transition", "elevating [it]" later in the sentence), it's easy to read it as meaning initiated/inspired/led. JG66 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

re: sources These are all reliable publications as far as I know (WP:QUESTIONABLE). No, I never bothered to check whether the authors were 68-year-old cultural historians teaching at Yale or Harvard because you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Did Pet Sounds inspire groups to be more experimental? Did it influence chamber pop? Did it expand ideas of could be done with the recording studio? Of course it did. My point is that some facts are so obvious that they're sometimes not written about - people take them for granted. It's less trivial and more "important" for most music critics or historians (especially Beach Boys biographers) to talk about how Paul McCartney considers "God Only Knows" his favorite song, or how the album was complacent in a racist agenda, or how Nobody from Nothingband considers it their greatest influence.

It's stupid that we have to rely on Nobodywriter from Nothingpublication in order to draw a clear line from Pet Sounds to something like prog-rock or indie pop, but it's better than nothing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"68-year-old cultural historians teaching at Yale or Harvard" … Brian, get out of your pyjamas once in a while. Point is, two editors here vs one – and I'd say the proportion would only increase with the input of anyone else who doesn't take wikipedia to be a forum for trumping up an artist's merits in the manner of a fan site – object to those claims coming from those sources. As with your preference for tag bombing, you appear to be incapable of working with other editors to improve the encyclopaedia. JG66 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, don't bother responding to my arguments, I guess. "Hurrrr tag bombing!!!!! Remember that one time last year where you didn't do a 100% perfect paraphrase?????? Tedentious editing!!!!!" The only objector to the article's claims here is you, and the only claim you're objecting to is in reference to the Beach Boys influence on the Beatles - this has since been removed from the article. Is there anything else questionable in "Influence and legacy"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the only one objecting to claims made in this article, and who's making them, am I? As far as not responding to others' arguments, I think that's you down to a tee – in that, while you might appear to welcome corrections to your "missteps", in practice you really don't work with other editors at all. JG66 (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll quote Piriczki: "Looking at the section Pet Sounds#Influence and legacy, particularly the last paragraph, it really strikes me as puffery. Not so much in what is said but in who is saying it." In other words, the claims are fine, but the sources could be better. My response: "Fair enough. I'll remove in-text attributions where appropriate and keep a look out for better sources." If you're still not happy, then add {{better source needed}} tags. If that's not good enough, then tell me what else is wrong. If your solution is to delete a quarter of "Influence and legacy" because the sources aren't on the level of Simon Reynolds or David Toop, then read WP:BABY.

I'm glad other editors have worked with you to address an issue and offer a real solution - I'm still waiting for the same treatment from you.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah right, and I'll quote the parts of Piriczki's post that you've ignored: "The whole paragraph appears to be the product of someone blindly googling for something, anything positive said by anyone about Pet Sounds. Who are these people and why do their opinions matter? … Who is Louise Mooney Collins? Can anyone say? Who is Troy Smith? I can answer that one. He writes about entertainment and pop culture (music, movies, television, WWE wrestling, etc.) for Cleveland.com, a crappy online version of the city's daily newspaper which has become a joke locally. He is certainly not a music critic and his opinion on anything certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Who is Chris Morgan? It appears he writes more about sports than music. The legitimacy of these quotes is such a reach that it only weakens the claims being made. That paragraph should be junked and replaced with content from known music critics, musicologists or music historians." For some reason, you took all that to mean that "awkwardly-placed attribution is the issue and not the stated claims" (when it couldn't have been any clearer in what he said: junked and replaced with content from known music critics, musicologists or music historians); and you then paraphrased the quotes and removed the intext attribution. Perhaps he'd like to comment here further, but as I understand it, he and I are saying very much the same thing. But fine, I'll add the better-source-needed tags, then. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't read WP:BABY, did you?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, did I read that "essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors"? No, I'm rather more focused on the advice or opinions of two Wikipedia contributors who have contributed to the discussion going on here. JG66 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Then there's nowhere else to go except in a circle. @Piriczki: wants the section to be "junked and replaced", but nobody can offer sources to replace it with. What does Jonathan Gould or Walter Everett say about Pet Sounds? Anything about chamber pop?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is a way to go besides following a circle. Two of us are saying one thing, and you alone are saying another: so the circle is that you won't back down. As mentioned previously, I believe if other editors joined in here, they'd agree – but I don't know, I'm only going from the regulars whose work as writers and reviewers I've seen (and learned from). An RfC or some other request for input could be an idea.

But once again, I'm confused at the conclusion you draw from a simple statement. (Which is the same issue I've been talking about regarding the way you've sometimes translated source material into an article: you appear to read into a statement what you want to read.) To semi-paraphrase Piriczki's words above, he says the current section should be "junked", and he wants "content from known music critics, musicologists or music historians" found as a replacement for that text. You're making out like there's some sort of dilemma here – "junked and replaced". It's simple: ditch the inadequate sources, and try to find better ones. I've only got (a good many) scans for Gould's and Everett's books, rather than hard copy, but I'll happily take a look, and in a couple of other sources. I can't recall seeing anything specific about genres, though. JG66 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, my point is this: you could remove claims that aren't sourced to well-established musicologists, for the superficial reason of "improving" it by making it closer to GA-status, but why would you when you know the material comprises facts that nobody would ever challenge? The current sources aren't perfect, but they're still acceptable for Wikipedia. It basically comes down to "how can a sports writer know that Pet Sounds influenced chamber pop"? This is only one level above needing a citation to say that the sky is blue.

Don't you think I would have already looked far and wide for a musicologist that says "Pet Sounds influenced chamber pop"? None of them write it, and it's not because it's false, it's because many fail to use precise wording. They'll only say something like "the Beach Boys' sophisticated use of strings and voices influenced chamber pop." You know that virtually every credit to the Beach Boys that involves sophisticated orchestration duly rests on Pet Sounds. You also know that we can't assume sources mean Pet Sounds every time they say the Beach Boys recorded music that was influential. Perhaps they're also referring to Today or Smile? (It's obvious 9 times out of 10 that they aren't).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You really are proving my point about tendentious editing and a determined agenda! I've just been searching high and low for a connection between Pet Sounds and the development of chamber pop – in Gould and Everett, countless other books, back issues of Mojo and Uncut, online music sites – and I've found absolutely zilch. You've found nothing to support it other than the two sources that, so far, the majority of editors at this discussion are deeming inadequate. Just because you think that musicologists, etc should explicitly say something, it doesn't mean we can present a claim about a music genre as if they do. On my travels, I also noticed that the chamber pop article uses the Mooney Collins/Newsmakers piece, which might make the Lead's statement there, "Specific works which helped define chamber pop include the Beach Boys' albums Pet Sounds (1966) and Smile (1966–67)", questionable also – although I appreciate that the point appears to be partly backed up by Treble. (And Treble's reviews – like those of Glide Magazine, No Ripcord, The Music Box and others – I've generally found far, far superior to those by sites who have an article on Wikipedia: e.g. Consequence of Sound, sputnikmusic [especially], even some at NME.com. But still, the average Treble reviewer is hardly qualified to comment on what, for better or worse, is a field of study).

Anyway, this idea that the chamber pop connection must be made is ridiculous. I don't know why you need to strive so hard to punch home the Beach Boys' influence across the encyclopaedia as if the planet won't sit right without it. I can't remember who said it above (it's probably in what's fast becoming a seminal post by Piriczki), but the lack of top-notch, authoritative sources lends the claim a desperate quality. All the time on Wikipedia we refrain from adding something if it's not widely accepted; I can't even count the number of albums or songs where I've thought, Oh come on – this is so obviously influenced by Revolver/Music from Big Pink/All Things Must Pass, etc … And it's not as if the influence and legacy of Pet Sounds would be an empty shell without it – but the integrity of the article would be a whole lot better, and that's important. Why don't you instead highlight the album's orchestral pop credentials: I found a September '06 review in Spin (p. 107) that calls it Wilson's "masterpiece of bipolar orchestral pop"? And btw, any editor can come here, decide to prepare the article for a GA nomination, and remove anything remotely questionable. One would expect they'd also take a look in the article history, note who's done the majority of work, and suggest a co-nomination – that's important. But it is a community project, and you can't just keep the content in a sort of holding pattern if others feel improvements could be made. JG66 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

re: tone Yeah, that's because there's too much of a reliance on direct quotes - paraphrasing would help the article a lot.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to feel the need to promote Brian Wilson to an embarrassing degree,

I direct you, once again, to comments I made in April:

About two or three years ago, the Sgt. Pepper article didn't even have a single reference to Pet Sounds on it. In an effort to correct these glaring omissions, I've more than likely made a few missteps of my own. Of course I don't want to overstate anything regarding any band's impact, and of course, I'm much more interested in the American boys rather than the English lads. So it will definitely seem that way. Please do correct mistakes you find.

Well, that's all very convenient for you. But a) you just revert edits that challenge your missteps, and b) I suggest the course of action should be that you radically change the way you contribute here, rather than relying on other editors to apply the requisite balance and neutrality. As I've said, none of this would so obvious if you didn't work so hard to ensure that music genre articles, Beatles articles, and I'm sure many others, adhere so strictly to a line – in terms of message, chronology, influence, etc – as you see it or want it to be seen. And you're just not applying the same rigorous, pedantic approach to what I'm calling "grand claims" when they're credited to the Beach Boys as you do for statements regarding the Beatles, certainly at the latter's articles. Ultimately I think you've doing Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys a major disservice, because this and other articles end up carrying a hyped-up, competitive tone. Pet Sounds is a work of extreme beauty, subtlety, and intelligent writers and commentators reflect that quality. JG66 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most of your sentiment (with exception to the continued weaselly accusations - you somehow conflate "I'm a human being who make mistakes" with "I don't care if I make a mess since others can clean it up").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You can call my suspicions about you "weaselly accusations", but I've seen you repeatedly misrepresent what sources say, to hype up the Brian Wilson/Beach Boys legacy. Your mishearing statements in the John Gilliand radio series is an obvious example, for claims in this article and at Revolver. As is your preference for going with the idea that UK music journalists, rather than ads in UK publications, called Pet Sounds the "most progressive pop album ever" when the majority of sources support only that this was an advertising tagline. "Tendentious editing" might be a polite way of defining your activities. You can either get your act together or I'll carry on compiling diffs for a topic ban request. I've enjoyed working with, and learning from, editors who have contributed massively to WP projects on musical icons such as Bob Dylan and Elvis Presley; with you, all I see is an agenda to inflate your target above and beyond. And it's so darn obvious, it's tawdry – and I'm not even considering wikipedia policies when I say that. As I've said above, I think it would be a good idea if someone could check all the statements in this article against the sources. JG66 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, good luck with that. I can see it now: "ilovetopaint is pushing an agenda. The smoking gun? He wrote 'the Beach Boys are the greatest band ever', but the 40-minute-long audio source that doesn't give you the option for time skipping clearly states that they're the best band ever. Also, the source that calls 'Sloop John B' a folk rock song - they obviously meant 'a rock song for folks', not a folk rock song! How could anyone defend this bias?"--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Up to you. All I can say is it would seriously bother me and make me rethink how I went about things if someone, just once, let alone repeatedly, pointed out the issues I'm pointing out to you. One reviewer did say the tone in a GA nom of mine appeared to be biased (in that the majority of sources were unrelenting in their condemnation of a particular issue). I was thankful for that, though, and defended him when someone else stopped by my talk page to discuss it. JG66 (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

if we're accepting a muso's view on an album [...]

I'm not sure what the objection here is. So long as you know the material is true, why is it a bad thing to include facts that were published in a reliable journal, magazine, or newspaper?

And what did you mean by [...]

I meant that they were the only dubious assertions. The Beatles did not learn 90% of what they knew from the Beach Boys, and Pet Sounds did not popularize sampling. It was obviously an error to include those portions of the quote.

[...] Why is that?

Because the material is not false and nobody has complained about it - it's possible somebody else would have come along to find sources for that paragraph.

Oh come on, that's laughable. So why have you slashed and butchered Cultural impact of the Beatles over a period of years? JG66 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah because the mixing and engineering for Pet Sounds is totally comparable to Sgt. Pepper's being responsible for a mustache craze. How long was the article in that state - like 10 years?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You're in no position to get cute. I don't know about a Pepper-era mustache craze (although it's more than feasible), but the Beatles' haircuts and image, the so-called "Beatle boot", the collarless suits, they were all highly influential on Western youth. On their fellow musicians also. JG66 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What are you on about? If you don't know about a Pepper-era mustache craze then what did I "butcher" out of the article? All that stuff about haircuts and Beatle boots is still there - do you not see the section called "Influence on fashion"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to how the article looked on 26 December. I was talking about how you'd applied a zero-tolerance approach to unsourced statements in that article in the past, yet when it comes to anything that might seemingly be beneficial to the Beach Boys' standing (e.g. those claims at the end of Pet Sounds#Engineering, mentioned above), it's allowed to remain, tagged for a period of years apparently, in case someone happens along and is finally able to verify it.

Talking about Cultural impact of the Beatles, I've been compiling a file of things to include there. But again, in how you've been expanding it just recently, at least, I'm left incredulous by where you steer the focus of an article each time. Aside from the many, many mentions of the Beach Boys, you've morphed much of it into an article that appears to warrant a completely different title. (Challenges to the cultural impact of the Beatles?) JG66 (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

lol, please continue this discussion at Talk:Cultural impact of the Beatles. If you want to retain any credibility, you might also want to voice some of the same concerns at Talk:Cultural impact of the Beach Boys, you know, for that huge "Criticism and rejection" section that I also included there, as well as that article's "many, many" mentions of the Beatles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think it's me that needs to worry about retaining credibility here – but you need to work out how to attain it. I think it's best if I just write an article that's really about the Cultural impact of the Beatles, using highly respected sources that are dedicated to the subject. Because there are quite a few, and their work's exhaustive and authoritative, which, as with any article on Wikipedia, should entitle them to be used as the article's main sources. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To further comment on the issue of "grand claims", I do believe that most of the "Other artists" section should be moved (not removed) to more appropriate articles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)