Pet Sounds - Beach Boys Mono/Stereo versions

CP/M User

Ace in the Hole
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Posts
3,705
Reaction score
374
Location
Nowhere Man
But how does one make it sound better when it's all based on the original Mono? :tongue:

Sounds Dodgy to me! :wtf: Cause like I said earlier it's all interpreted! :D
 

Hepcat

retired
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Posts
3,409
Reaction score
9
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Have to disagree with you vehemently about Mono being better than Stereo, especially with all the great programs they have now to do a fantastic job on the remastering process.

I agree. If all the musicians are not standing on top of each other, then stereo is twice as realistic interpretation of the recording as mono.

:drums:
 

PinkFreud

Rock Junkie
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Posts
469
Reaction score
2
Location
Right behind you!
PinkFreud wrote:

I know this will get me much flak, but I find Pet Sounds a bit overrated. I liked a few songs off of it, but the rest not so much, and to be honest, I judge an album by the amount of songs on it that I like. The higher the percentage of liked songs, the better I think the album is.
It's still a good album, don't get me wrong, but I often see it ranked VERY high on "top classic rock albums" lists, which I just plain disagree with.

That's the best thing I've heard so far! :D Cause everyone I talk to about it is always saying it's Underrated! :tongue:
I've never heard anyone call it underrated before :wtf: Any time it gets brought up it's something along the lines of what most music critics say: It was great, amazing, magical, etc.
 

CP/M User

Ace in the Hole
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Posts
3,705
Reaction score
374
Location
Nowhere Man
PinkFreud wrote:

I've never heard anyone call it underrated before :wtf: Any time it gets brought up it's something along the lines of what most music critics say: It was great, amazing, magical, etc.

Yeah lots of people & critics underrate it cause their always prattling on about "Sgt Peppers." I personally don't have that album, but I've heard it and just think it's The Beatles interpreting The Beach Boys! Though the album which tends to get overlooked a lot is Simon & Garfunkel's - "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme", which came out before "Sgt. Peppers." and shows that Simon & Garfunkel were prepared to contribute their own style of folk rock with a depth of Instrumentation! :D
 

LG

Fade To Black
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Posts
36,862
Reaction score
73
Maybe in Aus it's underrated but not here CP/M.

I will take Sgt Peppers 10/10 times over Pet Sounds. Were the Beach Boys first? Yes, that is not in question. Were the Beatles influenced/impressed when they heard Pet Sounds?...Yes they all were impressed with that album, it's no secret. Were the Beatles(And many others) Inspired to try and record something similar to Pet Sounds themselves? Again the answer is yes.

My take, the Beach Boys did it first, created a ground-breaking album, but in this case being first is not the only factor, Sgt. Pepper's was just a record I liked a lot more. And seeing the pool of talent pushing the boundaries in every genre back in the mid 60's if it wasn't the Beach Boys it would have been some other band that created something similar.
 

Craig in Indy

Your cool Uncle
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Posts
717
Reaction score
0
Location
Circle City
I'll have to go back and listen again to my remastered copy of PS to say for sure, but my recollection is that it's mono. I agree with LG that in general, stereo listening is superior to mono, but the only version of PS I have that claims to be stereo is the LP that was packaged in a three-disc set back in the late '60s called The Beach Boys Deluxe Set. If you read the fine print on the box cover it says it was "electronically rerecorded to simulate stereo" or some such crap. What they did was simply double-track the recording with one channel having the lows rolled off severly, and with a micro-second delay introduced into it. It's far, FAR from a satisfying listening experience.

I'm bothered by the fact that I can't recall if I have a genuine stereo version or not (I'm at work right now), especially since I'm a fan and one of those who will tell anyone who'll listen that Brian Wilson is a musical genius. I think PS is one of the greatest albums of all time, though I have my own personal doubts as to whether it's the absolute best, or even 2nd best. But I feel the need to say in defense of the album that it gets short-shrift from a number of critics and listeners because of the lyric content of most of the songs. It suffers from being on the tail-end of the "love song" era of serious pop/rock music, when people were beginning to expect the subject of songs to be something a bit more weighty than adolescent yearning and angst (a paradigm shift made most obvious in the Beatles' stylistic jump from Rubber Soul to Revolver). I think if one listens to the music on the album, and discounts the sometimes lightweight lyrics (even though they're exceptionally well written for what they are), one can gain a greater appreciation for the album as a whole, when taken in the context of the times. There's a very good reason, IMO, for Wilson to have referred to that record as a collection of little "pocket symphonies."
 
Last edited:

Find member

Forum statistics

Threads
30,725
Posts
1,068,885
Members
6,368
Latest member
bringzip

Staff online

Members online

Top