I remember, as a new teenager that summer, walking the streets of some north Yorkshire town, and seeing the window of a small time record shop (now probably a Star*ucks) fully decorated in a riot of colours to celebrate the new Beatles album.

An absolute classic.

it's cultural impact can't be denied...it's artful experimentation and beauty and original brilliance of approach can't be denied...it wasn't a really good rock album tho, imo...i know i know...very not politically correct but what can i say?
loved the reprise on the title cut...great rock band but you wouldn't know it from this...i'd rate it after rubber soul, revolber, the early beatles, the beatles 2nd album (yank release)...abby road, let it be, magical mystery tour...and yellow submarine beats it too; even tho there were only a handful of band tracks on the soundtrack...it would be of the last beatle things i would ever pick up to listen to casually, or seriously...or at all...as time passes...
even tho i admire a day in the life and all of lennon's arty stretching out...
and the production deconstruction and all the imagination that went into it...
bottom line...it's boring. that title cut is a killer tho...especially the 'reprise' on side two that is more rocking...
that's my take on it...in retrospect a little album with a lot of hype because it was ground breaking imaginative production work and an unexpected radical image change...in a time of great cultural change...but as a lasting document of a great rock and roll album? for me, it's not even on the list...

It is one of the best albums ever for sure.

JumpingKentFlash

You rate Yellow Submarine higher than Sgt Pepper? But seriously...

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
i'd rate
> it after rubber soul, revolber, the early beatles,
> the beatles 2nd album (yank release)...abby road,
> let it be, magical mystery tour...and yellow
> submarine beats it too; even tho there were only a
> handful of band tracks on the soundtrack...


Mostly agree with ya beely. SP introduced a lot of new elements to rock music, but out of that context, it's really not that good musically. There are Moody Blues albums better. Maybe the most-overrated album of all time.

Karl

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mostly agree with ya beely. SP introduced a lot
> of new elements to rock music, but out of that
> context, it's really not that good musically.
> There are Moody Blues albums better. Maybe the
> most-overrated album of all time.


Anyone who could state the above has not understood Sgt. Pepper.

JumpingKentFlash

Happy birthday Sgt. now you're an old boy!

Here in Rome the Mayor organized a concert at the Rome Auditorium to celebrate the anniversary! that makes you proud

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rate Yellow Submarine higher than Sgt Pepper?
> But seriously...

yes there is not one cut on sgt. pepper as good as
hey bulldog

surely i do...
look:

Only a Northern Song
Hey Bulldog
It's All Too Much
All You Need Is Love

any one or two or four of those, (out of the six actual band tracks on the soundtrack) are tracks i find much more eternal, emotive and personally important. just an opinion, but yeh i would rather listen to those than anything on pepper except the title song reprise from side two. absoltuely.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone who could state the above has not
> understood Sgt. Pepper.

Not sure what there is to "understand", but to my tastes SP has way too much cutesy, music-hall Paul. "A Day In the Life" is the only great song on the disc. But, as I say, only my opinion-not worth anymore than anyone elses

Karl

i've got mixed feelings about the album; I'd rate Hard Days Night, Abbey Road and Revolver above it, and like others have said, it's rare i put it on to listen to..and yet a guy on Irish Radio played it start to finish last night, interspliced with wee bits of talking from the Fabs, and I really enjoyed it.

It's definitely not a Rock (note capital 'R') album, but it certainly was the natural progression from the proto-artiness of Rubber Soul and Revolver. By the time of the next album proper they were back to basics-ish with the White Album.

In a way, Sgt Pepper was them just working the last of that mad-wacky experimentation out of the collective system before getting back to the home straight of White Album/Let it Be/Abbey Road.

For the cover, the printing of the lyrics, the gatefold sleeve, the bass on Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, and the afore mentioned reprise, i'll say it gets classic album status from me...

(but if i'm honest, I still hit 'skip' for Within You Without You )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-01 15:05 by textmonkey.

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure what there is to "understand", but to my
> tastes SP has way too much cutesy, music-hall
> Paul. "A Day In the Life" is the only great song
> on the disc. But, as I say, only my opinion-not
> worth anymore than anyone elses


The only song I dislike a bit is Within You Without You. There is a reason it has become a milestone in rock.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KSIE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mostly agree with ya beely. SP introduced a
> lot
> > of new elements to rock music, but out of that
> > context, it's really not that good musically.
> > There are Moody Blues albums better. Maybe the
> > most-overrated album of all time.
>
>
> Anyone who could state the above has not
> understood Sgt. Pepper.

or maybe has a different understanding and relationship to it than others, as these things go...i mean i think i understand it...where it came from, how it was recorded, the circus poster, the inspiration, the songs, the times, the production...i thik i understand what the songs sorta mean...i know there is some magical stuff there like lsd and a few others...but just because somebody else is gonna peak with let it be or abbey road or revolver, dosen't necessarily mean they 'understand' those better than anyone else, or don't 'understand' pepper...unless i'm missing something...

do you mean it's symphonic and incredibly imaginative? because i can dig that...
i mean it certainly sounds like nothing else did and is a clear cultural and artistic water mark, i admitted that up front...i bought it the day it was released and listened to and enjoyed it very much...it just didn't stick to me awfully deep in contrast with a lot of their other stuff...i hear paul's bass doing incredible things...i hear it...i appreciate it...if it comes on the radio or something it's always like this masterpiece in it's own class...but as a rock album...i do find it lightweight and unsatisfying...as a painting...marvelous...and i like art...i go to art shows...i admire your fandom and devotion and attachment to them...i just don't think this is that cool...i think 'two of us' is like amazing...'polythene pam' 'glass onion' 'everybody's got something to hide...' and most of rubber soul and revolver, mostly every cut...this kinda just lies there for me...rather than excite me...
nor was the songwriting up to par with half of what ray davies was coming up with, for example...in my personal OPINION...

but i know you're a big fan...you turned me on to 'love' and i wasn't gonna even go near it...ended up buying several for gifts...(and am more apt to listen to that than pepper as well)

i just disagree about pepper...have felt that way about it, in context with the others, for 35 years...that don't make me 'right'...it's just my opinion...and it don't mean i haven't 'understood' pepper...but maybe i haven't...
it will be fun to read about all the songs people like on it and why and what they mean to them and why and alla that...but for me, it don't move me that much...

oh yeh i forgot to mention the white album, that one's better too.
__ __ __ ___

and oh yeh; hard days night and help are better albums too...imo.
i mean i'd reach for ticket to ride or paper back rider or a zillion other beatles things before i'd go anywhere near pepper for pleasure listening in my personal life...hell, i think 'don't bother me' from 'meet the beatles' is better than anything on pepper...so i'm kinda weird i guess...
i especially like their larry williams covers...those come thru every time for me...timeless.
and i also honestly feel that if in any way that album was responsible for groups like Yes and the advent of 'art-rock' than it would be better if had been never released...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-01 15:25 by Beelyboy.

I also think it's a bit overrated. Well, maybe it's the most overrated album of all times...right after SMILE.

People tend to see more in Sgt. Pepper than there really was and the hype over the decades has done the rest.

A truly great album.

I played it today at full volume in my car, on my way home. Listened to the whole thing. During with a little help..., the driver of an open-top sports car in front of me was singing along and swaying her head!

40 years...

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

If the Beatles had been around today they would have been performing in Las Vegas and been charging 1000 dollars per ticket. John Lennon would have left many many year ago and he would have been a guest spot with the Rolling Stones at the MSG occationally.

I love the Beatles and I love their music but they did not have the patience and tolerance as individual band members to keep it all together - which makes you understand and appreciate how great it is to folloow a band which is made up by such great individuals as Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie.

Bjornulf

Dogs go crazy for the fade out after Day In The Life....



ROCKMAN

My dog did only show interest in Keith Richards CD's. When I told him it was my territory he never even went near the Beatles, even if I have a bunch of them, in the level where he can catch them. If I was a dog I would not go for the Beatles to be honest.

Bjornulf

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Impressive. Post and sleep at the same time.

Obviously I'm in the minority as "Within You Without You" is my favorite on this album.

PEPPER is fun but I prefer TSMR (and many other '67 releases, e.g., AFTER BATHING AT BAXTER'S, ARE YOU EXPERIENCED? and DA CAP0). And of course the single greatest album of 1967: THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO.

But that's neither here nor there so, Happy Birthday SGT.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Beatles had been around today they would
> have been performing in Las Vegas and been
> charging 1000 dollars per ticket. John Lennon
> would have left many many year ago and he would
> have been a guest spot with the Rolling Stones at
> the MSG occationally.

I can't agree with you there; I think had Lennon not been shot, they'd still have not felt the call of filthy lucre to perform in the manner you suggest. Perhaps George & Ringo would have wanted to, but I suspect that John/Paul would realise that there's a 'brand' that shouldn't be devalued. Look at the way that Apple have guarded the legacy over the last few years. In so far as they've been able to, the music hasn't featured on compilations, advertisements etc, and even as we discuss this, on an anniversary like the 40th for Pepper, there's no 're-issue' of the album. Compare, on the other hand, with the Beach Boys and Pet Sounds...

You could be right in what you say, but I couldn't see Lennon sign up for the cabaret schtick that killed Elvis...

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> aslecs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
>
> Impressive. Post and sleep at the same time.

i think they call that a 'speedball,' but it's hard to get 'em prescribed.

Original Pepper album had high pitched sound after Day In
A Life that was undetectable by the human ear....but dogs could hear..

Although one of my mates claims his wife can hear it clearly...!!!!



ROCKMAN

Great album SP, but it's never been a favourite of mine. I rate Rubber Soul, Revolver, Yellow SM, Magical MT and White Album much higher. I find SP to be too much pop songs, too much McCartney. It misses the 'edge' of the other albums afore mentioned.

By the way, even the Beatles made terrible albums: I found Please Please me and With the Beatles unlistanable.

Mathijs

I was going to add to this thread but I cant be bothered, because after writing my thoughts over 1 metre of post it wont make a scrap of difference to those under 55, those over 55 understand what Im saying and would write exactly what I am saying.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Beatles had been around today they would
> have been performing in Las Vegas and been
> charging 1000 dollars per ticket. John Lennon
> would have left many many year ago and he would
> have been a guest spot with the Rolling Stones at
> the MSG occationally.

So, you mean the Beatles would have gone the same path as the Stones?

> I love the Beatles and I love their music but they
> did not have the patience and tolerance as
> individual band members to keep it all together -
> which makes you understand and appreciate how
> great it is to folloow a band which is made up by
> such great individuals as Mick, Keith, Charlie and
> Ronnie.

The difference is: the Beatles never were a live band, they were a studio band. And they wrote and recorded in five years time (from '65 to '70) the best songs ever recorded by any band. Their legacy is to date unsurpassed by any other band, including the Stones. after five years, they had given everything they had in them, so the only logical step was to call it quits.

If the Stones would have done the same, they would have ended after Some Girls. Instead, they became the biggest live act on this planet, and their recorded output's only means is to tour.

So in the end, the Stones became the Las Vegas act, while the Beatles very wisely all went their own and separate ways.

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The difference is: the Beatles never were a live
> band, they were a studio band.

this is true, absolutely

And they wrote and
> recorded in five years time (from '65 to '70) the
> best songs ever recorded by any band.


this, i'm not sure is true. Don't think the Rolling Stones from 1968 to 1972 were inferior, or maybe even Bowie from 1971 to 1979.

>The difference is: the Beatles never were a live band

Rubbish. The Beatles would never have been what they were had they not cut their chops as a live act early on in Hamburg, etc.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNn

Whatever y0u say girlie-girl

The problem with Sgt Pepper so perfectly capturing 1967 is that, just like Satanic Majesties, it already sounded dated in 1968. Revolver is timeless music. Sgt. Pepper is not.