what makes you say it's overrated?

To be fair, when you have a band like the Beatles with a massive maniacal fanbase their stuff is always going to be a little overated.

It's easy to take the little stuff for granted but the production value and pure psychedelia bliss oozing from that album is incredible.

I guess I can call myself lucky I've never met maniacal Beatles fans, not in my everyday life, or online. On the contrary, at least online it was quite the opposite (prog and metal sites I have hanged out). 

Overrated for me means an artist's work that gets more appreciation than it deserves, a hype I cannot understand. In Sgt Pepper's case, I think the appreciation it gets is well deserved, so, no, I don't think it's overrated. 

In the end, yes - it was what defined prog rock. I believe the term "progressive pop" began at this point - sice the Beatles made pop music, but it was getting progressive on Sgt. Pepper (this of course later became "progressive rock"). Music we now call prog ("Kinda Prog?" ) was of course made earlier, but the Beatles I think made it what it is now.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's over rated but some of the songs don't fit as well as others. For example I could do without "when I'm sixty four" or "being for the benefit of mr. Kite." Not bad songs but they seem out of place. "Within you without you" is also maybe a bit out of place and should have appeared on a George Harrison solo album maybe. There's no bad songs on it and it's still a great album but I don't think it flows as well as it should except for the first few songs and maybe the last few.

It's popularity at the time was intense - people really believed that the album would stop the war, ease societal tensions, bridge gaps between generations.  That's a lot to expect of an album, eh?  Of course, pop music didn't save the world and as Pepper got overplayed, other music stepped into the hype maching and came out the other side as Top Albums, too.   Your Dark Sides, IVs, CTTEs, not to mention the CSNs, Eltons and Princes.

Oh snap! But agree with you 100%.

Compared to what?

Of course it's not overrated.

What does overrated anyway? Does it mean too many people rate it? Does it mean too many people like it? Too many people find it too enjoyable?

I'll express my own views on the album in a review someday but after listening to the album many, many times i don't understand why anyone doesn't find it a masterpiece.

Rating any given artwork shouldn't be about personal tastes alone. One can see the perfection of a work even if it doesn't suit one's tastes but in the case of Sgt Pepper's how can someone not find it an easy and admirable listen time and time again?

I am sorry, but that is a ponderous pile of cow pies. The Beatles were the most influential rock band of all time. It isn't even close. Not even in the same galaxy.

“I was struck by the thunderbolt that was “Please Please Me.” I immediately bought a copy in a seaside shop. It triggered a tremendous personal awakening, a leap into a new realm. In no time I knew more than a hundred Beatles songs on piano.” – Peter Gabriel

“It was terrifying; I had no idea what it was…Then it kept going. Then, there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this a colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I’d come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper’s… My life was never the same again.”  - Robert Fripp on hearing “A Day in the Life” on the radio for the first time

"If it weren't for the Beatles, there wouldn't be anyone like us around." - Jimmy Page

"I wish I'd been in the Beatles." - David Gilmour (who has played with Paul McCartney on a number of occasions) 

“I learned from Lennon, McCartney and Harrison that it was OK for us to write about our lives and express what we felt… More than any other record [Sgt. Pepper’s] gave me and my generation permission to branch out and do whatever we wanted.” – Roger Waters

 

If it weren't for the Beatles, I wouldn't be a musician." - Dave Grohl, Nirvana/Foo Fighters

"Everyone influenced someone. But everyone was influenced by the Beatles." - Alice Cooper

"Everyone thought the Beatles will just pass by. But to me, they had staying power." - Bob Dylan

 

"The Beatles are the reason I'm a musician." - Sting

 

"When the Beatles first played on the Ed Sullivan Show, they looked so cool. I knew something changed that night." - Joe Perry, Aerosmith

 

"There's no way I'd be doing what I do now if it wasn't for the Beatles. I saw them on the Ed Sullivan Show, and it blew me away how 4 guys from the middle of nowhere can make that kind of music." - Gene Simmons, KISS

 

"I fell in love with music through The Beatles. I still think there hasn't been a better band than them." -Adam Levine, Maroon 5

 

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is probably the best album I've ever heard." -Brian Wilson, Beach Boys

 

“The Beatles built our bible as far as musical composition, arrangement and production went. The White Album is a complete catalogue of how you should use a studio to build songs. ‘Happiness Is a Warm Gun’ and ‘Dear Prudence’ are blinding examples of how music can be like painting a picture on a canvas.”" - Brian May, Queen

 

"I saw the Beatles. I was able to relate to them. I'm going to play in a rock band." - Tom Petty, Heartbreakers/Traveling Wilburys 

 

"I watched the Ed Sullivan Show and said F*ck School! This makes it! I went to see them at Shea Stadium and screamed with those chicks." - Joe Walsh, The Eagles

 

"The Beatles were the first to find that path between artistic and intellectual." - Keith Richards

 

“The single biggest moment that I can remember being galvanized into wanting to be a musician for life was seeing the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show.” - Billy Joel

 

"Without The Beatles I don’t think women would be taking their cardigans off in hallways. They were responsible for the birth of the sexual revolution for women.” - Lady Gaga

 

“The lightning bolt came out of the heavens and struck Ann and me the first time we saw the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show. There’d been so much anticipation and hype about the Beatles that it was a huge event, like the lunar landing: that was the moment Ann and I heard the call to become rock musicians. I was seven or eight at the time." - Nancy Wilson, Heart

 

“It’s impossible for me to talk about popular music without mentioning probably my greatest mentor, John Lennon. I guess he defined for me, at any rate, how one could twist and turn the fabric of pop and imbue it with elements from other artforms, often producing something extremely beautiful, very powerful and imbued with strangeness.” – David Bowie

 

“If you hear something like "Man Behind The Curtain" or "Raining", you’ll see that it really is an attempt at combining the pop sensibilities of The Beatles and the Indian part of The Beatles—the George Harrison part. Speaking just about The Beatles in general though, they meant everything to me—I can’t overstate it because they changed my life.” – Adrian Belew 

 

“Sgt. Pepper’s was a great record. The Beatles are my favorites, you know. When I met Paul McCartney, it was the highlight of my life.” – Ozzy Osbourne

 

“Dear Beatles, it’s my earliest memory of music. I was three years old and in the back garden of 10 Cedarwood Road… I associate the song with the smell of freshly cut grass as I was lying on my back on the damp green patch after my Da had cut the lawn.” - Bono, writing a fan letter to the Beatles about the first time he heard “I Want to Hold Your Hand”

Jimi Hendrix, XTC, Electric Light Orchestra, Todd Rundgren and Utopia, The Squeeze, Crowded House, Smashing Pumpkins, The Cure, Oasis, Elton John, Bryan Ferry, Kate Bush, The Flaming Lips, Kurt Cobain (who wrote 'About a Girl' after listening to 'Meet the Beatles' for three straight hours), Jeff Beck and Al Di Meola are just a few artists who directly acknowledge the Beatles influence.

Evidently, you missed it. Evidently, as was recorded by many high-profile rock stars across several genres, seeing The Beatles in February, 1964 was a life changing event - so much so that they decided then and there to become musicians. I remember it clearly, because even as a 4 year old it was special. I've been a Beatles fan ever since. I also remember seeing the Beatles and Stones several times on Ed Sullivan. Evidently, you had some sort of mental block.

And humorously, the Byrds adored and were heavily influenced by The Beatles:

David Crosby: 

Chris Hillman: 

socrates17 wrote: An argument could also be made that The Byrds were much more influential than The Beatles.

An argument could also be made that The Beatles invented The Byrds.

Hi,

Saying it is overrated TODAY ... is silly and ridiculous, because you can compare to hundreds and hundreds of other albums since then ... we're talking what ... almost 55 years or something like that ... something, is likely to make it look overrated ... but using SW's opinion, is a bit ridiculous. He's not a master of history, and neither is he a musician that will stand the time for some 55 years! 

Now, if you take a time trip ... BACK TO WHEN THE ALBUM WAS RELEASED, there was nothing like it anywhere in the world, and it would not be over rated ... maybe not liked by some people that might think there were too many drug this and that and stupid things ... but no album, since then, has shown a band so intelligent and capable as to make something special stand out ... and they did ... 

THERE WAS NO OTHER then, to make the comment and idea that it is/was overrated a valid comment. It is, undoubtedly a comment made by someone that has no vision of the history of a lot of music, and how some things in the 60's took the world by storm.

It wasn't "overrated" ... and never will be!

Personally, I didn't enjoy it at all at the time and the passage of time has done nothing to change that.

At the time, you were generally either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. I never liked either.

The Monkees? 

 

And Peter Hammill:

 

 

 

 

I know, right. Oddly enough, he has said it in an interview for some magazine.

I was expecting Sgt. Pepper to be the Beatles' highest rated album on PA, but actually it is only in third place. Revolver (2) and Abbey Road (1) are ahead of it. Third place is about right in my view. I'd rank Revolver first and Rubber Soul second, so the overrated one as far as I'm concerned is Abbey Road.

I think so... If you take out "A Day in the Life", it's one of their poorest albums.

My favorites are White Album, and Revolver. but I think it's probably their worst album from 65-70.

Historically Sgt. Pepper's it was very important but more for the formal inventions than for the content: the background noises, the initial song resumed at the end (it was the first time in history), the idea of ​​being another band playing (vanished later the second song), the concept of musical entertainment, the final song that mixes pop and John Cage, and which remains the best of the Beatles. It's a fake concept album. 

In content, the second side is weak, and many of the songs on the disc are similar to those of Revolver or Rubber Soul only that they are arranged in a more baroque fashion, and generally have taken the variety of musical genres already present on Revolver to exasperation, arriving at a certain point to make rock music appear as a minority, present in a few songs. 

McCartney now only writes vaudeville or swing or symphonic songs, in short, all retro songs. 

Sgt Pepper's is therefore a masterpiece of light music, popular music, but not of rock. For rock it's not a cutting-edge album at all. Personally I love it a lot but I see all these flaws. The White Album seems to me to contain songs that are more in step with the times, and Abbey Road (and Let It Be) brought the Beatles back to playing rock music, in their own way, comparing themselves with contemporary groups, and remains their best work, more complete and mature, less varied, perhaps, but certainly with more mature and committed songs.

When he says "overrated", it's based on "Best of all time" lists, where Sgt. Pepper frequently appears. Here's a direct quote from an interview:

The record I can't understand why everybody loves is… "Nearly everything that ends up near the top of all time best album lists, especially 'Sgt. Pepper', 'Blonde on Blonde', 'Stone Roses', and 'Nevermind'. Not saying they aren't very good records mind!"

So when I grew up in the 80s, I didn't find anything of interest. So I went back to the 70s and I went back to 60s. And I found this wonderfully rich period of ten years. I call it „the golden age for albums“, which is really from „Sgt. Pepper“ through to Punk Rock. There's virtually not a single record from that period that I don't like. I just love the sound of the records. I love the look of the records. I love the ambition in the records.

He thinks it's a good album, and one of the most influential albums ever released. He just doesn't agree that it is listed as high as it frequently is on those "Best of" lists. If it hadn't appeared on those lists, he probably wouldn't have called it overrated. A list of "Best albums of all time" has every record ever produced to choose from, and how many would put Sgt. Pepper in their top 10 of that? If the list was "Most influential albums of all time" I can see the clear case of picking Sgt. Pepper. Some authors of the lists may of course consider both the musicality and the influence when they say "best", but that may not be communicated very well. Or how you weigh such a list between musicality and influence. 50/50, 30/70?

Don't forget that "overrated" means you state an opinion about someone else's opinion. It's not about the album or how you like it. You say that you disagree with how high others rate the album. It does not influence what you think of it or how you rate it. People seem to mistake this with someone (SW in this example) not liking an album or finding it important, which is incorrect.

I can see where Crim is comming from....

I mean Pepper is not even the Fab Four's best album (Road is)

I have a certain fondness for Pepper, because when arriving in Canada's english-speaking side, our english teacher made us learn the language by using Pepper and reading the lyrics.

Great & fun way to learn a barbarian tongue. 

I own several Beatles albums including 'Pepper' . I totally understand that 

The fact that we are having this discussion 53 years later says a great deal. 

That each track on the album is quite individual and stands out well. 

Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention parodying the original cover for their album 'We are only in it for the Money' is still quite a tribute to  the importance of 'Pepper'. 

'A Day in the Life' is astonishing , Two songs rammed together , an orchestra playing in a discordant fashion thrown in, is an absolute classic. I played it to a friend who doesn't get The Beatles, and they had to agree that the track is an achievement. 

But I am an getting on in years. I just do not know, as we stumble further  into the 21st Century if 'Pepper' is that important. But a fascinating thread nevertheless. 

Sometimes, given the way history is taught in school, people have no understanding as to how different things were 50 years ago ... and worse ... many don't care and think their opinion is more important.

When you do not have the "history" and "perspective" on history, a lot of these things lose some of their ability to stand ... and it is sad ... at the time, it was all they had to do what they did ... so go ahead, be silly and say that Mozart is an idiot and acid-hole for what he created, and on top of it, stupid because he wanted to do something different, and could only do it on bars, drunk and cavorting with anyone. He saw it differently and we don't care ... we think he is over this or that or under this or that ... 

this is one of the main reasons why so much of what I write is related to the time and place ... and it is a constant battle against the "commercialists" because it is like ... they don't believe in time and a place for anything ... so much for history in school! Or literature or any of the arts for that matter!

again, why take this thread so seriously? 

You seem angry... or something. 

Hi,

I would imagine that many folks out there playing music, take it very seriously ... it is probably why they get as far as they do. I'm not sure that so many of the artists/musicians do not take their art seriously ... now, if the audience doesn't care, that's another story isn't it ... but what gives them the right to throw stones when it doesn't matter to them?

Still a stellar creation, from top to bottom.

That's exactly what I meant when I said:

I think George Martin stated that it was to his regret that Sargent Peppers didn't include Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever. Put those two into the album and take out Lovely Rita and When I'm Sixty-four, you not only have the greatest Beatles recording you have the greatest pop/rock record of all time that not even Steven Wilson could complain about (similarly Brian Wilson regretted not including Good Vibrations on Pet Sounds; he eventually included it on Smile but it doesn't belong there).

A Day In The Life kick started prog rock

She's Leaving Home is achingly beautiful 

With A Little Help From My Friends and LSD make up the four.

Really the best Beatles album is a decent compilation that includes Eleanor Rigby, Penny Lane, It's All Too Much , I Am The Walrus etc. However it was the first time a band had turned rock music into art and so that alone makes it massively important. At least its nowhere near as dull as Dark Side Of The Moon (waits for the brick bats to fly )

Enchant X wrote: I just listened to it ... yes and no

Quite an exact answer!

For me, Sgt Pepper's is not overrated. I consider it to be about as perfect a Beatles record as you can get. 

When it comes to "influence" and "innovation", it's not like you can measure it, but I don't see why Revolver wasn't more groundbreaking. They're very similar and, well, Revolver came out before. And albums like In the Court of the Crimson King, Black Sabbath, Ramones, etc. basically created genres so they can be considered as innovative as well. 

But it's an excellent album and that's all that matters, overrated or not, it's a must for anyone that has a mild interest in rock music like any Beatle album from the '66-'69 period. 

Rubber Soul arguably was really when The Beatles started to 'wake up'. I think the point of Sg Peppers is that it expressed an intention to treat an album like a work of art and not just a bunch of potential hits for the radio . It fired up a lot of young musicians and lighted the blue touch paper for progressive rock. However in itself it's not an amazing album and I would even question whether any Beatles album is really that good. Often they released their best songs independently of albums which diluted their albums quality imo.

I heard it in June of '67 (age 16) and didn't know what to make of it at first....it sounded like the Beatles..but...?

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

 

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.

Proto-Prog indeed!

Too many overdubs? Yep!!

Great Production? Absolutely!!

Songs out of the context? Maybe but if the idea was a concept album, it´s on the middle of the road!

Good album but not THE ALBUM!

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.

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!

George Martin was with them from the start - he was the one who signed them to Parlaphone, and also the one who told them not to use Ringo on "Love Me Do".

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. 

Yes... It's not even one of their best. Remove "A Day In The Life" and its one of their worst.

Most of great things said about this could have been said about "Revolver".. I think an imaginary band is an interesting concept, but John and George said they didn't have this in mind at all when they wrote their songs.

Hi,

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

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.

Hi Mosh, there's two possibilities here, either you did not read what I wrote, or you misunderstood what I wrote. If the latter, it is possible that I simply wasn't clear enough. So I'll restate: the album's influence (i.e. the way it changed music) is NOT overstated in anyway. I gave a reason and you also gave a reason about various barriers it broke, all is well! 

My point about it being overrated is only that, when compared to some other Beatles' records one to one without any consideration for its legacy or place in music, the tunes on albums like Abby Road and Revolver tend to hold up better in a lot of people's opinions (for the record, I prefer peppers to Revolver). While this was not always the case, due to the recorod's legacy, time has allowed fresh ears to make that listenability evaluation without the "baggage" of its historical context. 

So in sum, I am basically agreeing with you. But unlike, I have respect for the question and approach the answer systematically. I don't ask the mods to ban the discussion because my feelings are hurt...