Sgt. Pepper- Overrated

The few whiners here will never hide the fact that SERGEANT PEPPERS was a groundbreaking work and its ramifications  went well further than the musical world to extend to the modification of the lifestyle of the youth back then , their way of thinking, thus changing the rules of life and ''modernize' our society .

Hyperborea wrote: May i bring my pedantic hat to this great site? Earlier in this discussion i stated that Yellow Submarine had been released before Sgt Peppers, i apologise i was wrong. What i should've said was that Yellow Submarine was recorded before Sgt peppers and a single was released in 1966..the 5th of August to be exact. So, Yellow Submarine was the first concept album the Beatles recorded.....and it's mince, a bit like Sgt Pepper.   I get all Sgt Peppers was/is still doesn't make it  agood album, one of the very few Beatles albums i would not listen to.

Sorry to be pedantic back but, although the song "Yellow Submarine" was recorded before Sgt Pepper as you say most of the album was recorded afterwards e.g. Hey Bulldog was recorded in Feb 1968. Also it's not really a concept album as the Beatles' songs on it (title track apart) bear no relation to the story in the film. It's a soundtrack.

Another thing to remember is that the journey from "Help" to "A Day in the Life" took less than 2 years, with Rubber Soul and Revolver in between. Most bands take that long (and more) to release one album these days.

Peto wrote: I just think that Sgt. Pepper is horrendously overrated.

Edited by Peter - August 24 2007 at 12:20

Peto wrote: This is not an anti-Beatles entry. I just think that Sgt. Pepper is horrendously overrated. Look at the albums that came before and after it - Revolver and Magical mystery tour. Both are much better in terms of songwriting, plus Magoical mystery tour is even more experimental than Sgt. Revolver and Magical mystery tour should definitely be praised much more than that one as a whole. What do you think?

KeleCableII wrote: I thank the Beatles for getting things started but lots of bands just did things better.

That doesn't follow some logic; it's all a matter of tastes (like always). For me, the fact that many bands after The Beatles (mostly prog ones) did more complex, experimental and adventurous music doesn't mean that they were better..... 'Better' is a term of endless connotations...... Don't know where are you based on to say that.

IMO, The Beatles choose the most simple and easy way to get all the average band can desire: popularity, awards and, overall, very good music; complex or not, skilful or not, prog or not......... good music with incredible feeling and creativity...... Aren't those things essential in any incarnation of art?

KeleCableII wrote: I thank the Beatles for getting things started but lots of bands just did things better.

I would prefer you would say "but lots of bands just did things more to my liking." It hard to say the Beatles didn't do it the way they wanted. Being "better" is truly subjective.

The band is incredible. Always was, always will be. In my eyes, you need to understand everything surrounding them in music during the time the were writing. I strongly believe they have done what no other band has ever matched or even come close to.

Melomaniac wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: KeleCableII wrote: I thank the Beatles for getting things started but lots of bands just did things better. I would prefer you would say "but lots of bands just did things more to my liking." It hard to say the Beatles didn't do it the way they wanted. Being "better" is truly subjective. The band is incredible. Always was, always will be. In my eyes, you need to understand everything surrounding them in music during the time the were writing. I strongly believe they have done what no other band has ever matched or even come close to. Everybody seems to forget the most important notion in this debate : context. Pop and rock music was mainly uncharted territory back then, everything remained to be done.  So it was a lot easier to be original then than it is today.  That is why, I think, this era is regarded as wonderful musically, simply because nothing was done and everyone was eager to explore... until the "Industry" sunk it's teeth in there (but that's another story...).  Let's just say The Beatles are "The Lighthouse Band" from that era, taking the credit for almost everything that happened, but let's face it and be honest with ourselves : they were far from being "The Best", and they were influenced by what was going on around them.  I firmly believe that any other band from that period could have done the same.  Let's also not forget that while they were in their god-awful "bubble gum pop" period, other bands were already being more original, it's just that the popularity of The Beatles overshadowed everything else...

The Beatles quite possibly could be THE most influential band. Most bands looked to them for the new thing. It was exciting to watch them and see what they were going to do next. The Beatles certainly provided a beacon.  They pulled in nothing new, in the sense that their inspiration was as you point out, from other elements surrounding them. Of the top of my head, I can't think of anything truly original, however their artistry, including that of George Martin, put them well ahead of the pack. Not to mention the strong song writing helped keep those hits popping out.. 

Now I want to point out that while any other band had potential to accomplish what the Beatles did, no other band did. What we witnessed were copy cat bands. The Beatles in essence said, "look here's the mold everyone else is following and we are not conforming to it.  Doing what we want with no limitations." Their fame allowed them to do it and still be at the top of the heap. Everyone else said, "if they can do it, so can we." From there we see all types of music come out. And that is one of the most important things to happen to rock music.

Calling them the best depends on how they are being measured, or maybe what is being used to measure them. They were not Prog monsters. But they did provide some of the elements we love. They showed newer bands the way.

Melomaniac wrote: Everybody seems to forget the most important notion in this debate : context.

Edited by Peter - August 27 2007 at 01:12

Peter wrote:   Not me, for one -- I just can't be bothered always taking this rather arrogant "overrated" stuff seriously all of the time.

I agree that a person view of that calling something well established over-rated is arrogant. Or worse, stems from an incomplete knowledge base. Sgt. Pepper's has the acclaim of many great artists even up to this day. This doesn't mean that other albums, such as Revolver, or Abbey Road are less important. As far as preference goes, I prefer a few other Beatles albums before SPLHCB, but that is all it is...preference.