Cinnie said:

really?

superspaceboy said:

Of course that's the best part of the album! Anx is crazy. Those songs weren't great on their own, but side 2 of Abbey Road is a masterpiece.

NDRU said:

this thread is going to make me cry.

modest subsequent album or a great album on its own?

Hmmmm.....interesting thread.

Question: How many of the posters were age 16 or over when Sgt. Pepper was released in 1967?

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion but there is a distinction to be made between the opinions of those that were "there" in the late 60's vs those who were born later and are looking back from a later cultural viewpoint.

The fact is the Sgt. Pepper album made an incredible impact at the time, not just because it was so sonically and compositionally different from anything that had come before but because it was embedded in a period of intense cultural flowering. The drugs and sex and openness to new thought provided a unique environment in which our listening was taking place.

Given the evolution of what rock music had been up until this point, Sgt. Pepper was like a giant exclamation point on the musical landscape of the time and one that was totally unanticipated.

In a few short months it created a whole new world of musical possibility and it literally blew our minds. It was what in today's parlance might be referred to as the most giant OMG! you could imagine.

So if you are a gen X or gen Y'r reading all the glowing reports of priase for this album from back in the day it may well seem like hyperbole to you and I understand.

But remember, you are looking back at it from a vantage point tempered by 41 years worth of musical innovation later.

Your listener's ears have a context of relativity that was not yet there back in the late 60's. A lot of what you take for granted and say "so what" about now was absolutely mind shatteringly ground breaking when Sgt. Pepper hit the shelves.

This is one of those, "you had to be there" things.
[Edited 4/11/08 11:11am]

dammme said:

I have trouble with this album. It seems like it's more of a singles package than a realized album.

superspaceboy said:

That's exactly what it is!

Nothing after Rubber Soul can be celebrated enough. They are the best band ever, nothing comes close.

The sad part is that a large majority of people (35 and under) can not name more than a handful of Beatles songs, this is a crime to the arts.

Kids should have to learn how to read, write, and listen to Beatles, Stevie, James, Miles, and Coltrane. That musical vocabulary is so necessary to make the next step in musical evolution and progress.

Cinnie said:

But a damn good one!

Let's all get up
and dance to a song that was a hit
before your mother was born
and though that ho is old as you-know-what
your mother should know
your mother should know

aalloca said:

Pet Sounds is a little bit beyond of Rubber Soul. So it is The Jimi Hendrix Experience entire discography..

dammme said:

Exactly. Kids today should also learn more from Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, Bob Dylan, maybe Laura Nyro and many more.

While I love 'Pepper', there was so much strong music happening back then (unlike the mostly sorry stuff we have today, but that's for another time ). For me, 'Pet Sounds', which was made partly as Brian Wilson's response to 'Rubber Soul' is at least as good as 'Pepper', and had Wilson's next project 'Smile', been released back in 1967, as intended, I think things might have been very different, with the Beatles and Beach Boys being viewed far more equally.

Personally, I'd say that Wilson's finished 'Smile' album of 2004 is better than any Beatles album ever released. I think the compositions and lyrics (by Van Dyke Parks) are just so strong on that one.

And back to 'Pepper' - yes, it was primarily a McCartney/ Martin led album, mainly because Lennon was losing interest in the Beatles at that time, though he did make time to contribute two of his greatest ever songs imo, in 'Mr Kite' and his parts of 'A Day in the Life'. As to it being overrated - by whom?? Certain critics and Beatles fans, I suppose.

If they'd put 'Strawberry Fields' and 'Penny Lane' on 'Pepper', then it would have been even better, imo almost rivalling 'Smile'.

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?

dammme said:

I have trouble with this album. It seems like it's more of a singles package than a realized album.

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, 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.

Anxiety said:

Uh, why in world are you listening to Abbey Road tracks on shuffle?

That is more for me than you as I'm the only person in the world that refuses to use the shuffle option. I like my playlists to be set in stone. Shuffle just leads to chaos and before you know it, the earth explodes.

sextonseven said:

who am i to deny abbey road the right to shuffle play on my iPod?!??

i can't help it if i like a little thing called VARIETY every now and then!

The fact is the Sgt. Pepper album made an incredible impact at the time, not just because it was so sonically and compositionally different from anything that had come before but because it was embedded in a period of intense cultural flowering. The drugs and sex and openness to new thought provided a unique environment in which our listening was taking place.

PurpleJam said:

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

superspaceboy said:

Of course that's the best part of the album! Anx is crazy. Those songs weren't great on their own, but side 2 of Abbey Road is a masterpiece.

dammme said:

I've already made Anx cry, but do you mean Magical Mystery Tour can be a better album than Sgt. Pepper?

NDRU said:

And side two was all of McCartney's ideas and work. The guy could be a brilliant composer when he wanted to. I guess you would not know this by listening to most of his solo albums I suppose, with the possible acception of 'Band On The Run'.

NDRU said:

I personally don't know about that. But I have read that 'MMT' was a more succesful form of a pychedelic album than 'Sgt. Pepper' was, even though it wasn't as impactful or influential a musical statement as compared to 'Pepper'.