Right after writing about how I want to be better about letting people misunderstand me (and everything else), I am here to try to dispel another Brian-Wilson-related piece of mis-information. I don’t know why, but here I am.
Pet Sounds and “Concept Albums”
Rightfully so, lots of people point to Pet Sounds as The Beach Boys’ magnum opus. Pet Sounds is often cited as one of, if not the, “best” albums ever recorded/released. Rolling Stone put it as No. 2 (on both versions of its “500 Best Albums” list); NME and Spin both had it at No. 1 at one point. It’s a great artistic achievement, almost certainly the most impressive and beautiful thing The Beach Boys ever released. I hesitate to say it is Brian Wilson’s best work, as some of the stuff he did immediately after Pet Sounds (including the song “Good Vibrations”) is probably better, artistically, but, for the sake of this discussion, we don’t need to get bogged down in some weird contest about “greatness.”
But, there is this one thing that so many people get wrong about Pet Sounds (and Brian Wilson’s music more generally). I have seen quite a few writers talk about Pet Sounds as one of the first “concept” albums. Many cite The Beatles’ Rubber Soul as the first, which is probably fair, and an apt companion since Brian was never shy about how Pet Sounds was his attempt at creating something similar to Rubber Soul. This is a fine distinction, maybe even a great one. But, so many people let the idea of what a “concept album” is (or what they think it is) get in the way of really hearing Pet Sounds for what it is.
A Narrative? An Arc?
Essentially, people jump straight from “concept album” to thinking this means there is a story, a plot, or some other sort of “arc” that makes an album’s various songs “work together.” I’m not sure exactly where this comes from, save perhaps the many later examples of “concept albums” where this is the case. See: something in almost every prog-rock band’s discography. Some of this might come from folks thinking of “concept albums” as akin to operas or oratorios, which is an apt comparison some of the time, but it only really works in specific examples; there are lost of examples of “concept albums” where this simply isn’t the right metaphor (Pet Sounds being one of them).
When I was compiling everything I could find on Brian Wilson, et al. for my dissertation, I was taken aback by how much writing there was that missed this point. Even some pretty prominent musicologists seemed to fall into the trap of trying to find a narrative arc across Pet Sounds despite the fact that Brian Wilson himself has said it isn’t there and that this isn’t the “concept” of Pet Sounds. Like I said, I wonder if the idea of a “concept album” (or even the idea of a “great musical work”) is so tied up with a need for there to be an overarching narrative or other structure that people—even those whom I would think should know better—can’t help but look for this sort of thing.
A “Sonic” Concept
So, what is Pet Sounds’s concept, you might ask? Brian Wilson has been pretty explicit about this on multiple occasions. The thing he says he loved about Rubber Soul was the way it sounded; he thought the album had a certain timbral consistency across its length and he was fascinated by this. He was really drawn to the idea that Rubber Soul was more than a collection of songs, and was something a bit more “synergistic;” each song had a “place” on the album, and there seemed to be a traceable sonic “idea” that tied each song together.
This is what Brian says he was trying to do with Pet Sounds. He wanted the album to have a specific sound from start to finish and this was the “concept” he wanted for the album. He has clarified this over and over, but there are some writers, theorists, and music weirdos that keep insisting the “concept” is something else. I don’t understand why (other than the fact that people are always looking for a “new take” on classic works like Pet Sounds). In some ways, this whole line of commentary feels like a willful misunderstanding of what the work is, which makes me wonder why.
There is an article floating around out there, published in a highly-acclaimed music journal that lays out the whole “story” Pet Sounds supposedly tells. The story starts with a teenaged couple wishing they were older (“‘Wouldn’t It Be Nice’ if we were older?”) then wanders its way to them going out on a date (“Let’s Go Away For Awhile” is the invitation to the date and “Sloop John B” is said date, with the two going on a boat ride together in Caribbean or something). Then, the couple grows old and starts to grow apart (with “Caroline, No” being the guy’s lament about this situation … oh, and apparently the girl’s name was Caroline all along).
I am being a little snarky, here, but I am not misrepresenting the article’s points. This is what the author seems to believe Pet Sounds is about. He goes into some detail about how Brian described Pet Sounds as a “concept album” and then lays this out as the album’s concept. If you really want to see it, I suppose it’s possible to find an overarching narrative inside Pet Sounds, but you have to look really hard. And, you have to ignore all of the things Brian Wilson himself has said about the album.
Tony Asher’s Concept
You also have to ignore the fact that, if this we’re the “concept” hiding inside Pet Sounds, this would by Tony Asher’s concept, not Brian Wilson’s. As usual, Brian didn’t write the lyrics to any of the songs on Pet Sounds; he hired Tony Asher to write them. Mike Love was Brian’s usual lyricist, but Mike was away on tour and, more importantly, Brian wanted to specifically go in a different direction with Pet Sounds, so he found a new collaborator.
Sure, Brian Wilson essentially said “yes” to Tony Asher’s ideas, and he likely had a role in the song sequencing, etc. but, at its core, this would have to be Tony Asher’s concept, and this article (and others like it) don’t seem to be making the point that Tony Asher is a genius.
The “Pet Sounds” Part
Also, this ignores the album’s obviously-stated concept. Brian called it Pet Sounds, as in, these sounds were things he lovingly cared for, as if they were his pets. The “concept” is right there in the title (and many comments Brian has made over the years)!
Like I said at the beginning, I think some of this stems from a fundamental (mis)understanding of what a “concept album” is. I think a lot of folks—even sophisticated music theorists, it seems—fall into a trap of thinking “concept albums” are always about something, and that “something” usually involves characters, a plot, and other narrative-based ways of exploring ideas. But, that just doesn’t work here (nor does it work in lots of other places).
Is it worth correcting?
There is a part of me that wants to correct this, that wants to make this the “hill that I die on,” so to speak. But, there is also a part that doesn’t really care, that is happy that the discourse around Pet Sounds almost universally says it’s a “masterpiece” and that people are out there listening to it. If talking about it like it’s a “concept album” with an arching narrative across its length makes the music more interesting to people, why should I interfere?
I am not sure I have a great answer to why it’s worth me “interfering,” here. It is certainly easier to point at others’ work and point out its faults than it is to make one’s own case and put it out into the world for others to poke and prod. I suppose that’s what I am doing, here. If I was a better (or, at least a more “current”) musicologist, I would probably submit stuff to journals and make sure this “error” gets corrected. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, I am not sure I care that much about this. There is no real “harm” done in folks thinking this is what Pet Sounds is about. Sure, they’re missing what I (and Brian Wilson) think is the real point, but if they’re still enjoying the album and this idea draws them in to listening more than they otherwise would have, I suppose it’s still “a win.” I suppose they might enjoy it more without having to twist into knots trying to find a narrative arc that’s not there, but adding 10% to something you already think is great isn’t that big of a deal.
“You’re all appreciating this wrong” is a bit of a weird hill to die on. So, maybe this is the best place for my rebuttal … a website where no one will read it.