I've wondered for a long time what excatly the point of Salon's music section. Given that Salon certainly can't compete with a dedicated music magazine, and especially those dedicated to particular genres of music, it should have a stated objective.

For example, to focus on music with political overtones might make sense, given the focus of the rest of the website. Or to target edgy, underground musicians that might have some relevance to the demographic of the audience. Or to specialize in long form essays about popular music that might appeal to Salon's generally affluent and sophisticated audience. Or to provide a contrarian voice to the reviews of major music releases of each week.

But what we get instead is an odd mixture of amateurish pop criticism, college and indy rock music reviews, and the occasional appearance of extremely mainstream features (like the interview with manufactured pop princes Avril Lavigne), that can't appeal to the majority of readers in any way. Lacking focus, Salon Music does a little bit of everything and does it badly. Not only does it do it badly, but in amateuristic fashion. No more consistent comment can be found throughout this section by readers than 'Salon is paying someone to write this crap?'

As another premium subscriber, I am left to wonder why part (even a small part) of my fee goes to such a poorly done section. Either abandon it, or refocus it, and improve the quality of writing. Your other entertainment features, like your TV and movie reviews, are at least consistent and relatively professional, and have a strong voice, even if I do not agree with the reviewer's tastes consistently. Why can't you manage to pull this off for music?

The thing that kills me about this is Beatles fans. They insist that everybody must LOVE the Beatles. They are boorish. They can never take a polite, "No Beatles for me, thank you", for an answer. The Beatles weren't bad, but it's still a shame that Lennon was right when he said they were bigger than Christ; it seems that for Beatles fans, the Beatles replace Christ. The fans then worship a Holy Quaternary -John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

-John Lennon on the Beatles, Rock & Roll, and the eventual fate of Christianity, from http://beatlesnumber9.com/biggerjesus.html

Marchese and Arnold think "oddballs" reference "Sgt. Pepper" as an influence because it is in an English idiom of folk and pop music. It sounds odd to the American ear because it is observational. It examines characters of English society - the meter maid, the travelling circus, the lonely suburbanite. George Formby started it all off. It doesn't have the politics of American rock music because England wasn't at war in Vietnam, and has none of the power of English blues bands like the Rolling Stones because the Beatles blended blues and English folk. It is perhaps more similar to Dylan than any of the examples of great 60's music Marchese and Arnold compare it to.

There are many other English bands in this tradition, which the Beatles helped to form. The Kinks, Pink Floyd, The Clash, The Jam, Blur and Pulp all use observation and irony to create a detached, slightly beady-eyed view of England.

Thanks Gina, Day in the Life is the best piece on the album. Really the package is wrapped too tight. The White Album is their best album, why can't everyone just say so. While the 60's are becoming camp, Sgt. Peppers looks like the real deal, but it isn't. The boys were victims of their own celebrity by this time, and they wrote songs by reading the newspaper.

Later they got out of the country, and they found some space. Songs like Dear Prudence, which are based on something that was really happening to them, are more alive, maybe not better, just alive. Sgt. Pepper was a probe from behind the curtain.

"Teh Beatles sux0r, LOL!"

I'm a huge Salon fan. And certainly the Beatles could do with a little take down. But this article ain't it. It'd interesting to get writers with good ears to listen to the album again; it'd be interesting to get scholars with knowledge about the context and the era to make a critical evaluations; here we get two people with neither qualification but a lot of attitude.

You can do better than this. Please do.

This Baby Boomer had pretty much given up on the Beatles by 1967 (much preferred American pop music esp. Motown) and am therefore pretty indifferent to the Sgt. Pepper hype. However, I do want to put in a word for the Dave Clark Five, who were considered the main rivals to the Beatles in early 1964. (The Stones and Who didn't really make an impact in the States for another year or so.) Yes, most rock critics over the last 4 decades have passed them over in favor of the Beatles (for "artistic" qualities) or the Stones (for "authenticity"), but IMHO the DC5 should be recognized as "proto-punks," and thus unsung heroes, so to speak, of what was to come later.

Their mostly-unsubtle rhythm-heavy approach to American R&B classics was considered too un-artistic or whatever by most critics by the late 60s. But listen to them now...and darned if it doesn't sound a lot "fresher" than some of their rivals! Definitely an influence (perhaps unwittingly so) on early punk-rock...yes, they deserve a slot in the R&R Hall of Fame.

The question: Why is "Sgt. Pepper" so overhyped is ridiculous in itself because it assumes a position that cannot be substantiated by music history. The question is a statement before any facts.

Thank you to the musicians and others for weighing in here about the cultural/musical significance of this album. David Crosby (another subject of ridicule for those who care more about rockdom posing rather than its soul) introduced Harrison to the sitar and thus Sgt Pepper's is one of the first "world music" venues. Not to mention the introduction to mainstream western culture the idea that Eastern religions might have something to say about civilization. (Beyond Ghandi's quip that western civilization is something the west should try...)

It was the first album for the FM/AOR aesthetic, as opposed to the AM/Singles world. It was an "art" album, with sonic innovation that was indebted to the ideas of the Dadaist and Surrealists because of Martin's mixing based upon random selection of tapes for sound loops. A Day in the Life (yes, the best song in so many ways) relied upon "art music" inspiration to achieve the crescendo...letting the musicians fill a space between bars to arrive at "x" as you will...this, again, was not something known to mainstream audiences.

The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, The Byrds...the point was to share your own creativity and inspire others to find theirs...and all in the ridiculously naive belief that music could change the world for the better. Leary claimed the album was the iteration of his "tune in, turn on, drop out." All this was an "in your face" for the "cult of masculinity" embodied in the military-industrial complex, or to the conservative culture of America that was already popping veins over "who is most popular, The Beatles or God?" Comparing Bob Dylan or The Beatles (or The Rolling Stones) is like comparing The Beats to the early 19th century Romantics and asking...which poetic aesthetic is better? It is a worthless comparison. Ahistorial and anti-art.