Is 'Sgt. Pepper' overrated?

This thread is still going? Good God.

SteveG wrote: This thread is still going? Good God.

 

Sgt. Pepper's historical significance is second to none for establishing pop music (and rock and all of its subgenera) as a true art form. Obviously there were many very artistic albums in these genres before Sgt. Pepper's, but The Lonely Hearts Club Band is the one which finally convinced the critics and the general public of what those in the know had been aware of for years. So on that count, no it's not overrated. On the other hand, it's sometimes still held up as perhaps the greatest album of all time on musical merits. The highest of praise. It's personally not my favorite ever, not even my favorite from The Beatles (maybe my favorite from 1967). But I wouldn't argue with anyone who claimed it was the greatest ever made. The music is consistently boundary pushing and imaginative, and many of the songs have stood the test of time for over 50 years. A Day In The Life, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, With A Little Help From My Friends, these are all certified classics, perhaps even standards! You can take your pick from the rest of the tracklist as well, it's full of gems (Fixing A Hole, She's Leaving Home, Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite!). Certainly not every song will be up everyone's alley, and many people may find very little here they truly love, but to this day it's an album you can hand to just about anyone and they will find something enjoyable about it. So on that count... I still don't think it's overrated. You're welcome your own opinion of it, but it's remained popular, influential, and highly regarded my many discerning listeners since the day it came out. I think that earns it its very grand reputation.

Hugh Manatee wrote: Sacro_Porgo Certainly not every song will be up everyone's alley, and many people may find very little here they truly love, but to this day it's an album you can hand to just about anyone and they will find something enjoyable about it. Certainly its eclectic nature is part of its appeal. This applies to just about every Beatles album and in particular the self titled white album. Arguments have been raging since the self titled albums release abour whether it would have made a better single album, however everyone would probably have a different opinion about what should be rejected and what should remain. Patti Harrison really liked Wild Honey Pie for instance. As for Sgt. Peppers... one of my favorite tracks is Within You, Without You, which a lot of people might well do without. I noticed you didn't mention it in your summary. As you allude, each to his/ her own. Sgt Peppers..., like a lot of songs on other Beatles albums, deals with nostalia and in that regard it probably has no peer. Edit: I don't know how the beginning of my post got attached to your quote, but I can't seem to get rid of it. [/QUOTE wrote: I didn't mention Within You, Without You as it tends to be less liked than the other songs. People often complain it's too long and too monotonous, but I found after I had listened to it enough times there were quite a few parts of it I really looked forward to hearing. It's certainly the most experimental cut on the album, as Revolution 9 is for the White Album. But to your point, yes, in their later period The Beatles seemed to pride themselves on their eclecticism, which is one of my favorite qualities about them.  Four distinct creative minds meshing and diverging in so many diverse ways that many people never get tired of their very short catalogue. I certainly don't. EDIT: ah, well it seems my post has had the same problem of going into your quoted area!

Edited by Sacro_Porgo - December 15 2021 at 23:20

Hugh Manatee wrote: Sgt. Peppers is not so much an album as a historical document. I have a problem with the term "over-rated". Where is the cut off point between over-rated, under=rated and rated. Who gets to decide the parameters by which something is rated? It all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Sorry about the resurrection, but I couldn't resist throwing in my two cents worth.

Hugh Manatee wrote: Sacro_Porgo wrote: The music is consistently boundary pushing and imaginative, and many of the songs have stood the test of time for over 50 years. On something of a related note, "Strawberry Feilds Forever" didn't make it to number one because I would argue that people were just not ready for it. It is now considered one of the greatest songs ever (I peronally rate it as my favorite song of all time). Who even remembers "Release Me"?

Edited by Sacro_Porgo - December 16 2021 at 13:14

Sacro_Porgo wrote: According to wikipedia, the real reason it wasn't #1 was because the charting company at the time only counted the sales of the best selling side of the single (since it was a double A side with Penny Lane), ignoring the reality that everyone who bought a copy necessarily bought both sides. If you put the sales of each side back together, they would easily surmount the sales of Release Me and put the single at #1 where it belongs! Also worth noting that the Penny Lane side of the single reached #1 in the US and Australia, while the SFF side did not. In the US it was counted separately and reached #8. In Australia they just referred to the whole single as Penny Lane and relegated SFF to B-side status. Man double-A sided singles must've been a headache to figure out when they first arrived on the scene.

 

Edited by Hugh Manatee - December 17 2021 at 01:43

richardh wrote: The Beatles were certainly the kings of the art world as you suggest. It's interesting that they weren't particularly talented as musicians and I suspect without George Martin they would never have achieved what they did. This sits slightly uncomfortably with me as I prefer my bands to be as autonomous as possible. The 'Fifth Beatle' thing was so true. You need someone who understands how to arrange music to be artful imo.

Edited by Hugh Manatee - December 17 2021 at 02:51