demonstated their vacuousness, their lack of any musical knowledge and that they should'nt quit their day job. What a moron.

Does anyone remember the almost unbelievable storm of self-congratulatory hype that attended the 20th anniversary of this album? An entire generation grooving on how they listened to the BEST album, MAN!! It was especially egregious considering the first track on the album began with "It was twenty years ago today!", made for marketing.

Has anyone noticed the much more muted celebration this weekend? My point is that there's nothing wrong with celebrating an icon of your youth when you're 60 any more than when you're 40. It's still your youth, and the icon is still valid. Perhaps even more so.

I agree with all those who have lambasted the two "critics" who discussed this album. But then what do you expect? Although Salon can probably afford to pay Greil Marcus for his views, do you really think he'd be caught dead here?

As to "When I'm 64" being maudlin...well, the argument can be made, I suppose, but when you consider that only two of them made it that far, it becomes somewhat more important, don't you think?

...now I know how many 'holes it takes to fill the Audiofile deadline.

(P.S. I do have to agree with Xeynon -- Rubber Soul is top dog in the catalog.)

Personally, I get more satisfaction out of "She Loves You" than I do out of the whole "Sergeant Pepper" album. That single grabs you by the ears and does not let you go until the final G6 chord. "Day Tripper," too. When it came to rock and roll singles, the Beatles had everyone beat.

I was 7 when they appeared on Ed Sullivan, but I didn't get excited about them until I was 11 or 12. They'd nearly broken up by then, and all my friends were getting into Cream, later Led Zeppelin and Santana. Nevertheless, I keyed in on the Beatles, learned to play guitar because of them, and I think I am a more open, expressive person because of them.

The early stuff is what gets me off. "Classic Rock" types dismiss it as bubblegum, but I have a limited tolerance for "Classic Rock." I love the chords and harmonies of the early Beatles songs. The distinctive sound, the seamless vocal blend, the undercurrent of sadness, reflection, even desperation (mostly Lennon's) that they always managed to transcend.

The great thing about the Beatles was that even though you knew you could never be one of them, it was easy to feel like you were in league with them. I think that explains their enduring influence. Obviously you can't be one of them today. Half of them are dead. But I know kids who feel like they're down with the Beatles the same way I did when I was 13. That is an incredible testament to their their charisma, of which their music was obviously the main part but not the whole story.

I really feel like they were dialed into something transcendent. Lennon said once that he was seeking "the peace that passes all understanding," and I believe it. I'll never get over them, and it's not Baby Boomer nostalgia. They added something real to my life, and I don't know who I'd have turned out to be without them.

Wow, so trolling is now part of Salon editorial policy!

Okay. Whatever.

I got to hear David Bianculli's tribute to Sgt. Pepper. It was not particularly "music criticism", but he gave more context to the album than this cheap-shot piece in Salon.

Give Bianculli's piece a listen. It made me laugh out loud a few times, and especially made me want to hunt down the covers done by Michelle Shocked and Patti Smith. I suppose they're way overhyped now, too.

I do agree with Gina's point that Sgt. Pepper isn't the Beatles best, and that other better albusm were coming out around the same time. For the Beatles I'd say it's fifth behind Revolver, The White Album, the soundtrack to Magical Mystery Tour (an extraordinarily underrated album), and Abbey Road.

I read somewhere that the Doors' second LP "Strange Days" came out the same week as Sgt. Pepper, and the band members were a little bummed about being overshadowed. I think they had a right to be so. Strange Days has the first use of a Moog synthesizer on LP, the production is both inventive and wonderfully ambient, and the songs manage to be for the most part emotionally realistic and powerful (e.g. People are Strange) while still making you feel like you are in a different, more exciting, place. It was the Doors last hurrah before succumbing to the increasingly erratic see saw unbalanced by faux lizard kindom on the one side and fat white blues on the other.

As far as the Rolling Stones. Of course they were one of the greatest bands in history, but I think it should be uncontroversial that the John/Paul were when together better songwriters. I think what sets the Beatles apart were that their lyrics are extremely inventive/weird, and (more importantly) that they wrote the catchiest songs in pop music. Only Hunky Dory/Ziggy Stardust era Bowie even comes close in rock. To find equals you have to look at songwriters who wrote musicals.

Lordy-

What a lame article.

Stones vs. The Beatles?

C'mon.

Of course, lately this seems to be by design. I can't help thinking that the geniuses at Salon have finally discovered that one way to make their magazine interesting (while doing as little work as possible) is to ensure that their features contain just enough inanity to incite a flurry of reader comments.

Seems like the perfect deceit. The letters are always much more illuminating.

I really enjoyed reading your comments, especially as you were the same age I was when it all happened. I still think it was one of the Beatles' great unsung achievements that they reached kids our age. "Sgt. Pepper" may have been a bit over our heads, but "Hard Day's Night" couldn't have been a more perfect soundtrack to our childhoods.