But Pet Sounds truly is a work of genius, dammit, a work of stunning aural and emotional complexity that has moments of sublime gorgeousness that can make one weep. Yes, it's absolutely true that Brian Wilson suffered a schizophenic breakdown, started to break down in '64, but I would have thought that that would have inspired more sympathy than contempt from this list. The big problem with listening to Pet Sounds for most people, I think, is that they're not prepared to listen closely to a group known for pop trifles. But Brian Wilson was a musical genius, and needed to express and explore his music, plumbing the emotional resonances and possibilities that studio recording allowed him, practically inventing complex multi-track recording (admittedly, he was heavily influenced by Phil Spector, and he was both influenced by and and influenced the similarly experimenting Beatles--not that that would draw anything but contempt from people on this list).
It may sound terribly pretentious and precious, but Brian Wilson sought a symphonic depth to Pet Sounds, employing any and every sound he loved (Pet Sounds, BTW, refers to favorite sounds), from beautiful oboe solos to sumptuously complex and moving harmonies, to bicycles bells and the like, engaging complex chord progressions, abrupt rhythmic shifts and the like, all with the aim of conveying specific emotions and shear musical transcendence. And it worked! Well, obviously not for most people in the U.S. It was the first (of many) commercial bombs for the BBs in the U.S., but it was the first recording of theirs to get critical and popular attention in Britain, where to this day the BBs are more revered than they are here, and Pet Sounds regularly is named first, or up there, among the greatest "rock" recordings of all time.
And to me, they do achieve at their best an emotional depth more akin to Schubert than to what I expect from pop music. Anyway, sorry for the length of my apologia, but I do think you should give them another listen (and they do have some worthy recordings beyond Pet Sounds). As "Daniel" (I think) pointed out, aesthetics is a very subjective thing, but I do know, at least, that by his criteria, the BB's are, at the very least, not fascist.
Happy holidays to all,
Ingrid
A postscript from Ed (insignificant other): For a musician, and more important, for someone who truly loves music (including pop), discovering beauty in what one assumed was pap is one of the very few things that make life worth living. Imagine my chagrin when the great LBO told me I'm infantile. Speaking of hiding from life: What does one think of people who spend hours a day composing diatribes in front of a monitor? But I don't really mean that, because I don't want to assume I know what other people think or why they think it. Aesthetic appreciation certainly cannot be completely objective, but we feel confident when we say Beethoven's c-sharp minor quartet is better than "Playground in My Mind." And I feel confident when I say that Brian Wilson's work, up to "Pet Sounds," is among the finest pop has ever produced. Not that this necessarily carries any weight, but the people I know who admire Brian Wilson's work of that time are nearly all other musicians, and very few non-musicians I know are aware that he was ever anything but a hack. His music after "Pet Sounds," for the most part, is precious indeed, almost unlistenable, and I don't feel qualified to guess why. I'm just sad about it.