I don't know if this is a topic that has been discussed on this board in the past or not. But anyway,

This album is either cited as being the one that entirely changed the face of music forever, or its called the most 'overrated' album of all time. Many people have listed other albums of the 'psychedelic era' as being vastly superior to 'Sgt. Peeper', like ones by Hendrix, The Mothers of Invention or even other Beatles albums for that matter. My question then is, if 'Sgt. Pepper' is indeed overrated as many have claimed it to be, then what makes it so(overrated)? Or does it in fact really deserve all of the honor and accolades that it has recieved?

When something is that good and fresh and different, sure, there's a tendency to overrate it. Comes with the territory of bein the best

I think it's a great album that is stronger as a whole than its individual parts. Outside of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life," I wouldn't call any of the tracks absolutely essential, but there's nothing as dreadful as "Yellow Submarine" or "Revolution 9." It's neck and neck with Abbey Road as my second favorite behind Rubber Soul. I certainly wouldn't call it the greatest album of all time.

Raze said:

Excellent response!!

i think over the years, its original impact has gotten lost in all the mountains of accolades and imitations. that's not the fault of the music, but i do think lazy music journalists and lame "best albums of all time" lists have put sgt. pepper on a pedestal that has become offputting to a lot of music lovers. sure, it's a brilliant album, but for pete's sake, there's other music in the world. it's like, say something new about the album or move on already. i don't know if that's the same as "overrated". on its own merits, i still think it's an amazing album.

Sgt Peppers wasn't the first "psychedelic" record. It isn't the best. In fact, it's hardly a psychedelic record at all, other than LSD.

However, it WAS the first huge departure from the norm for The Beatles. understand that they were incredibly huge at the time, and this was quite a risk. The production on that album took some turns as well. Where Rubber Soul was pretty rocking, Sgt Peppers was all over the place.

It was like a challenge was issued to the fans of The Beatles: stay with us, or get off the boat, because we're going down a different road.

Now, The Beatles never gave up their pop rock roots totally, but this was a milestone album for one of the biggest selling bands of all time.

To put it plainly,

HELL NO.

The Beatles are overrated.

But I actually like Sgt. Pepper
[Edited 4/11/08 7:43am]

AlexdeParis said:

I like this response. For me Abbey Road is a little bit better than Sgt.

dammme said:

If they are then Prince REALLY IS.

dammme said:

my only problem with abbey road is that there are so many great songs on it, but they feel unfinished because they're all chopped up and crammed into what sounds like a medley. it's frustrating. just when i'm starting to groove on one of the songs, it's over! of course, the whole album isn't that way, but that part of 'abbey road' really frustrates me.

Anxiety said:

See, that's what I really like about it. "You Never Give Me Your Money" is my favorite song on the album and I love how it pops up throughout as a theme. It's a lot like I Want You.

I'm a Beatles fan. But I don't think anyone (including the Beatles themselves) ever claimed that Sgt. Pepper's is their best albm when it comes to a song to song competetion with their other albums.
I think what makes it important is that it was daring for a commercial band, using all that strange sounds. I mean, Straberry Fields Forever was such a huge step forward.
So the impact it had makes it more important than the music per se.
Since I like John Lennon the best, I'm not a fan of this album at all. John's songs are mostly uninspired (Good Morning, Good Morning, Mr. Kite...) or written with the massive help of Paul (Lucy).
The only good song he wrote on is own for Pepper was A Day In The Life (of course the middle is Paul's)
John was so full of LSD he couldn't work properly.
Sgt Pepper's is mainly a Paul McCartney project.

I go with John Lennon you said in 1968: I like our new album [The Beatles aka The White Album] much better than Sgt Pepper, since it has better songs!"

AlexdeParis said:

oh, i love every song on there. i guess i even like how they're arranged. maybe what bugs me is how they're tracked on the cd. i'd rather have that medley section as one big track than to have them chopped up with awkward/sudden breaks between songs. i guess it didn't translate too well from vinyl.

Anxiety said:

It should be seemless. How are you listening?

graecophilos said:

Unfortunately, there are some inferior songs, too.

AlexdeParis said:

Try trimming The Beatles (the while album) down to 8 songs so it fits on one album. You would end up dropping some really solid tunes.

Of course there are a couple of stinkers on a 30 song set.

graecophilos said:

One of the best album covers too... when that used to matter.

Dauphin said:

I have no problem with it being a double album, but it's only a little over 90 minutes long. I could fit it on one CD easily with a few quick cuts... starting with over 8 minutes of noise.

AlexdeParis said:

So you're starting 8 minutes of Back in the USSR and Birthday?

lol

Dauphin said:

You're half-right, because "Birthday" would definitely get the axe. Why didn't Martin tell them that was a b-side?

dammme said:

it's true

Dauphin said:

Indeed it wasn't the first pychedelic album made. Other songs had already brought the term into use before the release of 'Pepper'. I read that the song 'Eight Miles High' by The Byrds, was considerd to be the first real instance of a hit psychedelic song in pop music, I believe. As far as albums go, I also read somewhere that The Beatles, or more precisely McCartney himself, was inspired to make 'Sgt. Pepper' due to the influence of hearing the album 'Freak Out' by The Mothers of Invention. That album is often said to be a better psychedelic effort than 'Pepper'.

AlexdeParis said:

oh, it's totally seamless when i listen to the album all the way through. but if i want to hear just ONE of those songs, or if part of that medley comes up in shuffle play, it sounds wonky. that's what i'm whining about.

PurpleJam said:

i thought sgt. pepper was a reaction to the beach boys/brian wilson coming up with 'pet sounds' and 'smile'.

I think The Beatles are overrated period. I have the album and while i truly admire the production, the songs simply don't pull me in. There is no emotional investment on the album. It's smart for sure but does it touch me? Do any Beatles songs touch me. No. I know its compared a lot to Pet Sounds but to me that album wins hands down. Its gorgeous, witty, sad and the production is fantastic and the melodies are just perfection.

Yeah, it's overrated. It goes without saying there's great stuff on it, but it's not quite the masterpiece it's reputation would lead you to believe. "Lovely Rita" alone disqualifies it from being called "the best". Revolver is a far more consistent album.

Anxiety said:

Oh, OK. I get that.

midnightmover said:

I couldn't disagree more. "Lovely Rita" is infinitely better than "Yellow Submarine" IMO. The former is amusing, but the latter is just wrong.
[Edited 4/11/08 9:42am]