Is 'Sgt. Pepper' overrated? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

moshkito wrote:

ssmarcus wrote:

Let's answer this on two separate axes: the axis of legacy and influence and the axis of overall quality and listenability.

...

Hi,

It's very sad to see that people, do not see or can relate to the incredible thing that the Beatles were at the time, and the most important part ... how different and far out the album was compared to all the crap available on radio and on LP at that time!

Today's folks, are making comments based on what they know, but without the historical fact, I doubt that a comment can stand up ... at the time, there was no "internet" or "media" talking about these things, although both the Beatles and Rolling Stones had broken the barrier, others were making their voice heard as well, which helped folks like The Kinks, The Who and many others take off ...

Seeing many of these comments without a strong background and slight knowledge of the time and place, this album is something that we ... who cares? ... but in the end, the album and the Beatles will survive, because many of the comments don't factor into the history of the whole thing.

Sgt. Pepper's is not over rated and PA needs to stop and close this thread for the lack of intelligent and comments that help the time and place. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS MISSING in the discussion and definition of PROGRESSIVE BRUHAHA .... to help folks understand it ... I sincerely hope it doesn't take a reign of horror, that sets off a trend of occult and horror novels for some 25 to 30 years ... hello French Revolution ... and all we're doing is bringing the album down to "our level" because we don't like the idea that someone else is more artsy than we are!

So bizarre ... but we buy their music!

Well for once I agree with Mosh. Part of the legacy of Sgt Pepper is the impact it had at the time of release. People will listen to it now and not understand or know how it compared to other music around at the time and what impact it had on other musicians as well.

Me? I was around but too young to understand.

Rednight wrote:

^Incomprehensible. Explain.

Hi,

Why bother walking, or driving a car when you have a limousine? With a bar and munchies, and maybe even a girl bartender!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Let's answer this on two separate axes: the axis of legacy and influence and the axis of overall quality and listenability.

On the axis of legacy and influence, no the album is not overrated. This was the moment studio album based rock geared towards active listening (as opposed to just general dance or mood music) and began to express real artistic purpose and vision.

On the axis of listenability, there are definitely circles where the record is overrated. But in recent years, I have seen polls and lists in Rolling Stone and Louder Sound that most people realize that records like Abby Road and Revolver are better records.

Ronstein wrote:

"...and the Beatles were fortunate enough to have the funds and the support from EMI to use it to inspire what was. at the time, unlike anything that had been before."

Gee, don't you think EMI had no choice in the matter seeing as the Beatles were the biggest thing on the planet at the time?

"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno

uduwudu wrote:

...

But yes I do mean having someone who can direct sophisticated harmony to his subjects worked very well. Placing an act with a suitable producer worked wonders.

Hi,

George Martin had been with them since HELP ... and GM was very well known in England already, and even done a lot of comedy (for Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan), which was appreciated and loved by the Fab Four. And he was a great choice, because he ended up working with kids that actually like to explore and play music, rather than the street choice to just do the riff and sing over it, continuously! He explains that in his special!

Sgt Pepper was a wonderful "multi media" thing (that is with sound effects mixed in and different things done), because the producer was innovative and liked the ideas he was hearing from the guys ... and he incorporated a lot of them, which ended up giving us a few songs that were very different and made the band sound better and stronger ... which they had become anyway! But it likely would not have happened as well if the producer was some idiot a$h-hole that wanted to do Rock'n'roll ... so the choice of a GM was designed to improve things and the group did not seem to mind ...

Plz watch the incredibly nice special on GM ... and how he did what he did, not only with the Beatles, but with more artists than you and I will EVER be able to list in our hands! It will help make better sense of what the Beatles did!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

chopper wrote:

Rednight wrote:

^Incomprehensible. Explain.

He means a lot of the genius in Sgt Pepper is due to them having the cash and the freedom of Abbey Road studios and its techies (at least I think that's what he means).

Which is true to a point but they had to get to that position in the first place.

That is exactly what he means. The clout of being a novel teen sensation.

To me the real impact of Sgt Pepper has not really been examined. In between the title track and reprise is a holiday camp representation. But the power of A Day In The Life, bleak, beautiful after all the light weight fun is where the real impact lies. A dire of real life in the real world depiction the real world outside of the purposely escapist fun.

But yes I do mean having someone who can direct sophisticated harmony to his subjects worked very well. Placing an act with a suitable producer worked wonders.

Rednight wrote:

^Incomprehensible. Explain.

He means a lot of the genius in Sgt Pepper is due to them having the cash and the freedom of Abbey Road studios and its techies (at least I think that's what he means).

Which is true to a point but they had to get to that position in the first place.

chopper wrote:

Let's not forget that Sgt. Pepper was released less than 4 years after "I Want To Hold Your Hand". Some bands don't make any albums in that time let alone progress that much.

Having shed loads of money Abbey Road Studios and the brains inside there is not something that happens to anyone.

...it was the Beatles, setting the stage like they always did.

"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno

It's not overrated, and has to be considered within the context of the time it was made. It's not an album I listen to these days, although I should probably go back to it at some point. I first heard it in the 80's when I was about 17, so it's difficult for me to guage just just how 'important' an album it was, but again considering when it was made and what was happening in rock music at the time, I can accept that it probably was a very important album, in terms of rock music evolved into the 70's.

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

Post Reply	Page <1 3 456 7 9 >