Only those who were alive & aware (in other words, over the age of 12 or so, and music fans) at the time of Sgt Pepper's release are qualified to discuss why it was or is so important. I was not yet born. While I love the Beatles, Sgt Pepper is not my favorite of their albums (I prefer the White Album & Abbey Road, and Revolver to a lesser extent). But you can't undo the influence of later music on your taste and perspective, no matter how much you try. An analagy would be that in 20 years, I will scoff at a then-25 year old telling me about why NWA or REM or Nirvana or Sonic Youth was great, overrated, etc. "You weren't there!", I will likely tell them, even if their opinion happens to mirror mine. And then I will yell at them to get off my lawn and threaten to take their baseball if it lands on my porch again.

I happen to love "Sgt. Pepper," and consider it one of the top three or four Beatle albums, depending on my mood. I'd probably put it in my top ten albums of all time. But, hey, if it wouldn't make YOUR list, no problem. I'm not forcing it on anyone.

Why are Marchese and Arnold bothered by the fact that I and millions of other people adore this album? What's it to them? They admit that they haven't listened to it in years, so clearly no one is forcing it on THEM. What irks them so? What were they hoping to accomplish with this article? Did they think their inane banter would change my (or anyone else's) mind?

Sweet creamy Jesus, what a pathetic, self-congratulatory, condescending conversation these two clowns shared with us. Their combined ignorance and arrogance is stunning.

I am at a loss as to why David Marchese would choose Gina Arnold as his foil for this article. I've read one of her two books and countless articles she wrote throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, in the San Jose Metro and the Mercury News. The best thing you can say about her writing is that if you already agree with her basic premise (such as, say, The Replacements were awesome) then you might not be offended by the sloppy prose and refusal to fact check. (For example [and I will admit, these are oldies...I don't doubt she's found new howlers to print]: Eric Bazilian was never in Hootie & The Blowfish. "Eye Of The Tiger" was not a Frank Stallone song. The Replacements video with the shot of the speaker? That was "Bastards Of Young.") The point of this seeming ad hominem attack? Gina is a writer with an opinion and no desire to actually do any research or critical thinking once that opinion is formed. It can be argued that the first two errors don't matter. After all, who cares about the source of a Joan Osbourne song, or about a band reduced to doing self-parodying commercials? To that I'd reply that if she can't be bothered to understand something well enough not to make ridiculous errors, in this case the terrible, terrible music she was (rightfully) dismissing, then how can we take seriously her dismissal of it?

The Replacements error, however, cuts straight to the heart of the matter. This is a band about which Gina Arnold has expressed borderline obsession. (Great band. No argument here.) But if she cannot be bothered to get something as easy as the song associated with a video right (and The Replacements made precious few videos) when she obviously cares about the band, why in the world would anyone give her a platform? She's only going to make you look foolish.

And she has. It is arguable whether SPLHCB should be crowned "greatest" anything. The Beatles made albums that had better songwriting and have aged with more grace. But to argue that the Beatles' influence is anything less than pervasive and that SPLHCB wasn't utterly of its time, that it somehow failed to express anything of the moment only cements Arnold's place at the top of the ignorant heap. Polyphonic Spree? "A Day In The Life" alone can be heard echoing through the works of many a dour, piano-based ballad. Now, I'll bet that the music Arnold (and by association Marchese) likes is probably more obviously influenced by the Stones. (It kind of comes down to her old issue: The Replacements or Husker Du. Myself, I prefer the melody-and-meth sound of the Huskers to the booze-and-blooze of the 'Mats, but even there I can hear as much if not more Beatles than Stones in the 'Mats actual music.) But again, she makes sweeping statements (and drags Marchese along with her) with little or no basis in any reality-based world. To intelligently argue about a thing being overhyped you must first understand what level of hype it may have deserved, and neither of your columnists have made the barest effort to that end.

Salon, you've repeatedly come out against people whose desire to push an agenda or opinion is untainted by fact, reason or precedent. Why the about face?

Twelve years old, in my older sister's bedroom in Oklahoma City, putting Sgt. Pepper on the record player turntable, and being amazed and mesmerized, listening to it all day long until the parents make us turn it off and go to bed, looking at the album cover with a magnifying glass, poring over the lyrics... You can analyze it all you want. Those of us who lived through it and got blown away by it, and the entire experience of growing up with the Beatles know that we were the luckiest people ever. It was a different world, a much much simpler world. If you were there, wherever you were, you know what I mean. It's just something you'll never forget. Why can't we just LET IT BE what it was and is for everyone involved...

Oh, Lord.

In a few days we'll probably also see a Camille Paglia column about how the Stones are better than the Beatles, and she'll act like her observations are the newest, most controversial thing since sliced bread.