Line Out - Comments on Sorry to Pick at an Old (Boring, White) Scab...

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:37:55 -0800

I could never figure out why any Beach Boys albums merited that kind of comparison. That stuff just has not aged at all well. Nice harmonies though, I guess.

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:46:18 -0800

You are both wrong, and I will fight you.

Comment by meerkat

meerkat — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:06:28 -0800

You present your argument as fact, when we all know music is about opinion. Except when it comes to bands like Kid Rock, Nickleback, Jars Of Clay, and Filter. We all know those bands suck.

Comment by laterite

laterite — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:18:29 -0800

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Schmader.

Comment by Natural Thig

Natural Thig — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:45:03 -0800

Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band>>>>Rubber Soul

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:49:10 -0800

You're on, Levislade! Gibsons at dawn.

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:00:37 -0800

Not flaming banjos? Now that would be a fight!!!

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:19:04 -0800

5: If you believe that to be true, you must also prefer My Pretty Ponies to actual horses.

Comment by hahnsolo

hahnsolo — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:29:23 -0800

no way, pet sounds all the way. granted rubber soul's individual songs have spawned whole genres of bands, pet sounds is wholelistic, packful of genuine innovative and new ideas, and, most importantly, has better individual songs.

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:35:26 -0800

9: I respectfully disagree, citing Rubber Soul's accomplishments as a rock n' roll record by an amazingly musical rock n' roll band versus Pet Sounds inherently lesser stature as a gorgeous, perfectly executed song cycle where the band is secondary to the songwriter. Rubber Soul has moments as gorgeous as the best of Pet Sound, but PS offers nothing to compete with Rubber Soul's rock n roll.

Comment by yep

yep — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:08:30 -0800

For what it's worth (I think not much, but since we're talking about Rubber Soul..) I was listening to that record last weekend, having just been through the process of mixing an album, and all I could hear was the freakin tambourine... Man, did those blokes like to feature that particular instrument in the mix. That's what recording does to me for a while - I can't hear the song for the tracks! Once you're aware of it, it's hard not to listen to it.

Comment by Sameer Shukla

Sameer Shukla — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:02:14 -0800

You're a typical Stranger douche for re-posting this for the one millionth time. Typical in the sense that you inherently have to compare two incredibly influential records by making one seem so much worse than the other. While you should be comparing the influence that Rubber Soul had on Pet Sounds and perhaps commenting on the difference between the two in terms of production, song lyrics, or arrangements, you settle for blanket statements regarding genius. But I guess that the former would require actual, you know, thought. I mean, have you actually HEARD Pet Sounds? Obviously not.

Comment by pete maravich's socks

pete maravich's socks — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:36:58 -0800

Forever Changes >>>>> all the albums discussed here.

Comment by bunnypuncher

bunnypuncher — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:42:50 -0800

I've never been much of a Pet Sounds fan, anyway. And I'd like to fight Brian Wilson, any era.

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:06:52 -0800

Sammer at 12: You're obviously a dick, but you might also be lightly illiterate, if you came away from my original post thinking I'm dissing Pet Sounds. Pet Sounds is amazing. And what's even more amazing is Rubber Soul.

Comment by ss

ss — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:03:17 -0800

David-

Only bad writers blame readers. Communicate better, dick.

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:49:52 -0800

SS: I'm not blaming you. I'm concerned about your illiterateness.

Comment by ss

ss — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:29:44 -0800

I don't think anyone who spells 'Sammer' should be talking about anyone's ability to read. Stop being so damn sensitive. You're a 'writer', right? And if you can't do that, you can always pretend to be important by talking about 'Showgirls' for the rest of your pathetic, pseudo-journalistic life.

Comment by hahnsolo

hahnsolo — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:20:55 -0800

10: i must agree that rubber soul is an infinitely better rock and roll album, but pet sounds is an introspective pop album, far removed from rock, with pioneering arrangements and studio technique aside, hasn't been matched since.

the most gorgeous intimate moments in rubber soul don't come close to pet sounds, lyrically, musically, production-wise; i dont consider it a fair bout though if one is going to compare the musicianship of the beatles vs. the wrecking crew. sure songwriting can be conceded to be equal in a politically correct kind of way, but the execution of those songs is definitely not equal.

i guess the fairest comparison would be the best ballads on each album, probably God Only Knows or Don't Talk vs. Girl or Michelle?

both Beach Boys songs trump the Beatles' i think.

Comment by beatcomber

beatcomber — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:00:55 -0800

an apple is better than a grapefruit but neither is as good as an orange. anyone who disagrees with these facts can go and get fucked.

Comment by Dougsf

Dougsf — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:01:15 -0800

Revolver is a better record than both of those.

Comment by A. Dude

A. Dude — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:08:48 -0800

Schmader, you are going to use the band being secondary to the songwriter as a critique and then go on to laud a band and album that features Ringo Starr on drums? Seriously you're sticking by that critique?