Brian Wilson thought it was a pretty good album.

Everybody's entitled to an opinion. My own: I think it's a masterpiece.

The "Fab 4" wanted to get away from their "Fab 4" image and do something outside of their own existing personae. The Beatles were one of the first bands that actually wrote their own material. They broke a certain barrier in that.

Sgt. Pepper was one of the earliest concept albums. There have been many bands that have made records since that incorporated orchestras and numerous side-players.

When CD players debuted this was the very first CD that I bought - already owning 2 copies on vinyl.

The title, itself became a label for other band's groundbreaking records: "this is (insert band name here)'s "Sgt. Pepper"".

This album is important in the history of rock and without it who knows what happens. I just feel like they are part of the foundation and other bands recorded better albums.

Sgt. Pepper was recorded on 8 tracks. Just consider that for a while.

EDIT: Sgt. Pepper was recorded using a Studor FOUR track machine - then ping-ponging each group of 4 tracks to a separate machine, then adding new groups of 4 tracks at a time. 8 track machines were available in the U.S. but they weren't common in England. It was a laborious process. Nowadays, you have non-linear systems like Pro Tools, Pro Logic and others where you can add infinite tracks. That they (George Martin, Alan Parsons and the band) were able to bounce the tracks to end up with this recording is nothing short of amazing.

[Edited on 5/9/2017 by Rusty]

Revolver, which preceded it, and Abbey Road are superior, in my opinion.

Nowhere in your review do you state:
"To my taste"
"By my criteria of good music"
"By my definition of a good song"
or anything similar........

You take the role of declaring it X, as in a fact or uncovering some Sherlock Holmes like hidden truth that we, and legions of music critics for 50 years have never seen, without guidance and ears sharper than ours.

and made it a thread

and thought people would agree (?)

out of curiosity, how old were you in 1967? not that that is a barometer of opinion validity

It is a barometer of knowing the social and political and world environment that the album came out in. And the perspective of ears that first heard it. Not that music is judged on context either.

Sgt Peppers could be a so-so album. I think it is a masterpiece. Is it a listening choice to bop to for me? No. It is a mood selection once a year or so and it sets me down in time to great music, by my standards and perceptions. When I play it I stop everything else. But I wouldn't say my take on it is "the analysis of fact and truth" Or start a thread lobbying for that. Just me though, and net forums are great for being, well, forums.

Revolver, which preceded it, and Abbey Road are superior, in my opinion.

Agree
Maybe Rubber Soul too
Still, Pepper is a great album

It's a great record, but funny, I never play it. If I'm in the mood for some Beatles I'll put on Rubber Soul, Revolver, The White Album or Abbey Road.

I agree with this comment from Rusty:

The title, itself became a label for other band's groundbreaking records: "this is (insert band name here)'s "Sgt. Pepper""

Frank Zappa took it literally:

...out of curiosity, how old were you in 1967? not that that is a barometer of opinion validity

It is a barometer of knowing the social and political and world environment that the album came out in. And the perspective of ears that first heard it. Not that music is judged on context either.

Sgt Peppers could be a so-so album. I think it is a masterpiece. Is it a listening choice to bop to for me? No. It is a mood selection once a year or so and it sets me down in time to great music, by my standards and perceptions. When I play it I stop everything else. But I wouldn't say my take on it is "the analysis of fact and truth" Or start a thread lobbying for that. Just me though, and net forums are great for being, well, forums.

Actually, I think the age question is very relevant. Unless one is a student of the culture and the music of the times, judging a 50 year old album by today's standards totally removes the context during which it was issued, and that context is very important.

By today's standards, Robert Johnson's 78rpm recordings from the 1930's may not stand out that much from other 1930's recordings, but consider the impact they have had on the music we appreciate today.

absnj, I too was thinking about Robert Johnson as an analogy.

Another one might be the Model T: if any of us were to ride in one now, we would find it bumpy and squeaky and noisy and stinky. However, at the time, it was revolutionary, and we still benefit from the effects of its innovations.

1967 I was negative 21 years old. I didn't think many people would agree but I did give it a good ranking. But looking back at rock history I don't think it can be said that the Beatles where head and shoulders above everyone else.

As for best album ever it might have been released in 1959. That album would be Miles Davis-Kind of Blue

Sgt. Pepper was recorded on 8 tracks. Just consider that for a while.

EDIT: Sgt. Pepper was recorded using a Studor FOUR track machine - then ping-ponging each group of 4 tracks to a separate machine, then adding new groups of 4 tracks at a time. 8 track machines were available in the U.S. but they weren't common in England. It was a laborious process. Nowadays, you have non-linear systems like Pro Tools, Pro Logic and others where you can add infinite tracks. That they (George Martin, Alan Parsons and the band) were able to bounce the tracks to end up with this recording is nothing short of amazing.

[Edited on 5/9/2017 by Rusty]

That is amazing

Nowhere in your review do you state:
"To my taste"
"By my criteria of good music"
"By my definition of a good song"
or anything similar........

You take the role of declaring it X, as in a fact or uncovering some Sherlock Holmes like hidden truth that we, and legions of music critics for 50 years have never seen, without guidance and ears sharper than ours.

and made it a thread

and thought people would agree (?)

out of curiosity, how old were you in 1967? not that that is a barometer of opinion validity

It is a barometer of knowing the social and political and world environment that the album came out in. And the perspective of ears that first heard it. Not that music is judged on context either.

Sgt Peppers could be a so-so album. I think it is a masterpiece. Is it a listening choice to bop to for me? No. It is a mood selection once a year or so and it sets me down in time to great music, by my standards and perceptions. When I play it I stop everything else. But I wouldn't say my take on it is "the analysis of fact and truth" Or start a thread lobbying for that. Just me though, and net forums are great for being, well, forums.

He stated an opinion. So what? You seem to make it sound like his opinion does not have same merit that you seem to have. Again, so what?

All subjective. The guy just had a thought and opened it for discussion. Isn't that why we talk about music here? We can't all like the same stuff.

Sgt. Pepper was recorded on 8 tracks. Just consider that for a while.

I love hearing John count off the measures during the strings swell on "A Day in the Life". They didn't know exactly what they were going to put there. Today that would be totally edited out.

But looking back at rock history I don't think it can be said that the Beatles where head and shoulders above everyone else.

As for best album ever it might have been released in 1959. That album would be Miles Davis-Kind of Blue

Agree that Kind of Blue is one of the greatest albums ever and is definitely on my deser island lust

Maybe I'm biased because I remember watching the Beatles on Ed Sullivan (I was 5), but yes, they were head and shoulders above everyone else throughout their career

I will back you up a little bit here IPowrie. I've always thought it was a pretty overrated album. As others have said, it's not even the best Beatles album, much less the greatest album of all time.

Sgt. Pepper's has 2 undisputed masterpieces (Day In The Life and Within You Without You), a couple of pretty good songs (Getting Better, With A Little Help, Fixing A Hole, Lucy In The Sky) and what you described as filler. The great songs are SO great that I think it skews people's overall opinion of the album. Come on, is an album with Lovely Rita and When I'm 64 on it really the best album ever?

I also want to address this comment....

"judging a 50 year old album by today's standards totally removes the context during which it was issued, and that context is very important."

I don't see anywhere that IPowrie is judging Sgt. Pepper's by some kind of modern standard. What he said was this....

"To me it's not even the best album of 1967."

I couldn't agree more. Compared to something like Are You Experienced? or Disraeli Gears it has not stood the test of time. Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, Days Of Future Passed....lots of better albums released in 1967.

I will back you up a little bit here IPowrie. I've always thought it was a pretty overrated album. As others have said, it's not even the best Beatles album, much less the greatest album of all time.

Sgt. Pepper's has 2 undisputed masterpieces (Day In The Life and Within You Without You), a couple of pretty good songs (Getting Better, With A Little Help, Fixing A Hole, Lucy In The Sky) and what you described as filler. The great songs are SO great that I think it skews people's overall opinion of the album. Come on, is an album with Lovely Rita and When I'm 64 on it really the best album ever?

I also want to address this comment....

"judging a 50 year old album by today's standards totally removes the context during which it was issued, and that context is very important."

I don't see anywhere that IPowrie is judging Sgt. Pepper's by some kind of modern standard. What he said was this....

"To me it's not even the best album of 1967."

I couldn't agree more. Compared to something like Are You Experienced? or Disraeli Gears it has not stood the test of time. Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, Days Of Future Passed....lots of better albums released in 1967.

This is a great post! Of course, I have to disagree with some of it... I am of the "Sgt. Pepper's is one of the greatest albums ever made" ilk. It's a masterpiece from beginning to end, and it has stood the test of time. Hendrix immediately covered it in concert, totally sensing it's power and grandeur. No one has mentioned that it's also the best album COVER of all-time. I think it deserves the accolades and if you compare it based on record sales (I know, not always the best barometer, sorry), it blows the competition away.

Now, I think Are You Experienced and Disraeli Gears are also incredible albums (Piper and Days aren't close, imho) but it's awfully hard to compare Hendrix/Cream to The Beatles as they are totally different genres? I realize they both appeal to each of us, which to me says more about how great Sgt. Peppers was/is because it's a pop album and we measure it against blues and hard rock. Just sayin...

Pet Sounds. Not sure if it was released in 1967 though..

Pet Sounds. Not sure if it was released in 1967 though..

How can you be dismissive towards, "When I'm Sixty Four"?

McCartney had a near duality of song-smithing abilities. "64" was of his Cole Porter side.

I close my eyes and enjoy the imagery that it brings. Pondering vacations on the Isle of Wight - if they're in the budget. Digging the garden, pulling the weeds ... how did this stuff even occur to Macca?

It's not a rock and roll song and probably seems a bit out of place on any Beatles record. But one of the things I like best about Sgt. Pepper is the way the songs flow into one another. "Within You Without You" - that's certainly another great song, but how does that fit in in a Beatles venture? It's the flow! When I listen to this album I listen to it from start to finish. For me, each song is a part of the whole experience.

Chocolate vs. vanilla? Gimme a scoop of each!

I do remember McCartney as being quoted as saying it was way ahead of Sgt. Peppers..

I agree with this comment from Rusty:

The title, itself became a label for other band's groundbreaking records: "this is (insert band name here)'s "Sgt. Pepper""

Frank Zappa took it literally:

Frank really did think the Beatles were selling out on Sgt. Pepper. Frankly (pun!) I don't get it.
He actually called McCartney seeking permission to use the mock picture as the FRONT cover of his record. McCartney told Frank that "it was up to the legal people". Frank chastised Paul - telling him that the artists should control the legal guys. The mock picture ended up on the inside cover of Zappa's album.

that being said I think Peppers was a concept album way of ahead of it's time..

"How can you be dismissive towards, "When I'm Sixty Four"?

McCartney had a near duality of song-smithing abilities. "64" was of his Cole Porter side. "

I am not the biggest McCartney fan, and I don't listen to much Cole Porter. The "show tune" side of McCartney's catalog I can pretty much do without.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the Beatles later-era stuff, but I just don't have the same relationship to their music that some of you do. I grew up in a house where their music was never played. I don't think either of my parents own any Beatles albums.

This may be the key right here...

"it's awfully hard to compare Hendrix/Cream to The Beatles as they are totally different genres?"

Fair point, and I guess I just like the Hendrix/Cream genre a lot better.

That said, the Moody Blues Days Of Future Passed is a more apples vs. apples comparison, and give me that album over Sgt. Pepper's all day long.

Rob, you know there are many varieties of apples. 😉

But looking back at rock history I don't think it can be said that the Beatles where head and shoulders above everyone else.

As for best album ever it might have been released in 1959. That album would be Miles Davis-Kind of Blue

Agree that Kind of Blue is one of the greatest albums ever and is definitely on my deser island lust

Maybe I'm biased because I remember watching the Beatles on Ed Sullivan (I was 5), but yes, they were head and shoulders above everyone else throughout their career

I think that Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, and Bruce Springsteen are on the same level.

"How can you be dismissive towards, "When I'm Sixty Four"?

McCartney had a near duality of song-smithing abilities. "64" was of his Cole Porter side. "

I am not the biggest McCartney fan, and I don't listen to much Cole Porter. The "show tune" side of McCartney's catalog I can pretty much do without.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the Beatles later-era stuff, but I just don't have the same relationship to their music that some of you do. I grew up in a house where their music was never played. I don't think either of my parents own any Beatles albums.

This may be the key right here...

"it's awfully hard to compare Hendrix/Cream to The Beatles as they are totally different genres?"

Fair point, and I guess I just like the Hendrix/Cream genre a lot better.

That said, the Moody Blues Days Of Future Passed is a more apples vs. apples comparison, and give me that album over Sgt. Pepper's all day long.

I was going to mention Days of Future Passed as an album that I think is better. I grew up in a household that only had th Blue Album.

Other 1967 albums I prefer
Jimi Hendrix- Axis Bold As Love
The Doors- The Doors
Love- Forever Changes
Buffalo Springfield- Buffalo Springfield Again
The Who- The Who Sell Out

But I also think that The Velvet Underground and Nico is an overrated album

One thing becomes clear through the course of this thread - this was an astonishingly creative, ambitious and accomplished period for popular rock'n'roll-based music worldwide, one that may never be equalled or even approached, let alone surpassed.