First of all, unless you are somewhat close to having lived through that era in musical history, please exit the stage and keep any snooty, negative comments to yourself. Sgt. P. is a moody, and hauntingly beautiful piece of work. And it still holds up for anyone who's opinion I value.

I can remember exactly where I was at the moment I first heard it. On my best friend Rob's brother Craig's stereo -- purchased cheap in Saigon. Craig was on leave from a 3 year tour in the Marines. He survived it by-the-way. Truly life changing. There is huge emotion linked to this particular Beatles album and other works during that magical 2 or 3 year period; Cream, Hendrix, King Crimson, The Moody Blues and a few others. The Doors are not in the same league, my young friend. Next time write about something in your own league.

Peace, Love.

And the winner is...letter writers.

...was all about possibilities, as were the Beatles. The Beatles were getting better all the time, and every new album was like a revolution. And if Sargent Pepper was such a incredible and magical album, and it sure seemed like it was at the time, then what incredible album might the boys come up with next?

Well, after SP, the Beatles sort of fell back and then eventually broke up. So did the 60s; bright promises segued into a dreary run of assassinations, riots, drug abuse, Charlie Manson, Patty Hearst. Disco came in and then the yuppies and then Nixon, Reagan, and now Bush. So SP stands in memory as the highwater mark of the failed promise of the 60s as well as of the Beatles themselves.

Personally, I still enjoy the Beatles but I could live without them. The Beatles were for happy, optimistic people, and I'm not like that anymore. I'd rather listen to Hank Williams or the Carter family these days. That's the stuff I understand now.

Let's just put it this way, if indeed the album is overhyped, it didn't have anything to do with the horrendous Robert Stigwood production or Frampton and the Bee-Gees... Ask anyone who heard it in the day for the first time, or kids who got into the Beatles 12 years after the album came out and got to discover the Beatles "out of sequence". I/They would tell you the Sgt. Pepper was the Beatles thematic bomb and changed studio musical art forever.

Or tried to. Big yawn. Very poorly done. Several non points were made to prove one predetermined conclusion: Only really really clever people such as we can understand the many reasons why everyone else is entirely wrong. History is wrong, the hype machine is wrong, and Sgt. Peppers is really not a bit more relevant to the history of music than that really loud belch I emitted the other day.

Perhaps the most interesting quote was where they are so eager to make their case that they essentially call Kurt Cobain a liar. "Kurt Cobain claimed the Beatles were his touchstone, but you don't hear it in his music." Meaning, I guess, that Cobain doesn't even have a clue to his own influences, because it sure as hell couldn't have been the band he claimed was a touchstone. That's like me saying that I first fell in love with writing as a kid by reading the short stories of Ray Bradbury, and these two saying "Oh no, silly Tideswimmer. Ray Bradbury wrote sentimental tripe about rocketships landing and taking off in small-town America. Such nonsense!"

Bottom line: this sort of automatic negation is not criticism; it is boring and easy. Please do better next time.

I liked only two Beatles songs the first time I heard them: "A Day in the Life" and "Lady Madonna." I don't believe the latter ever made it onto an album, but it's a stupendously cynical song performed to an upbeat rhythm that is totally incongruous. Where do I think Gilbert O'Sullivan swiped the structure for "Alone Again, Naturally" from but the Beatles' "Lady Madonna." "ADITL" is a masterpiece: a dark vision that makes me envision winter, Bergman movies, a shred of hope in the midst of shit. The Beatles were authentic only when they were on the dark side, and I don't think the Stones were nearly as dark as they made out. "Sympathy for the Devil" is just fun, a good time confession of iniquity, not some twisted journey into the Interior.

Why Sergeant Pepper? I don't know. It was too "concept-y" for me even 40 years ago, and the only song on there that lives up to the vision is "She's Leaving Home." The rest is cute or embarrassingly dated ("I've Got to Admit It's Getting Better" today is sickening).

The chief beneficiary of Sgt. Pepper was Richard Goldstein, the Village Voice critic who purposely panned it in the NY Times to earn his bones. When Ned Rorem blasted Goldstein, Richard had arrived.

Okay feature this: the first time I had a chance to sit down and really listen to "Sgt. Pepper" all the way thru I was in college. Seriously! Not to mention this was in 1991, and I had been listening to tons of "nevermind" and "bleach" just prior. But as I listened to the Beatles, I caught myself singing along to just about every song. How'd that happen? Could it be because these songs are not so "detached" and "cold" as we're led to believe in this lousy exercise in criticism? Instead perhaps they are likable, approachable and evocative? I felt nothing jarring about going from wailing "I don't have a gun/no I don't have a gun" along with Kurt to "lovely Rita meter maid/nothing can come between us/when it's dark I tow your heart awaaaay" at the top of my lungs. Do people do this for bad songs? I suppose. I don't like to believe I'm one of them! Chacun a son gout.

It is interesting to remember that the NYTimes music critic (Landau?) panned Sgt Pepper when it came out with the exception of A day in the Life, which he said was a masterpiece. So it seems as if you guys agree with him