Sgt Pepper was generation defining not because it expressed the social and political turbulance of the sixties, but because everyone who heard it was changed by it. It certainly changed rock music but for many it changed something more in the way they saw life, very hard to describe, but if you were alive then, you know what I mean. From a muscial critical standpoint perhaps it was not the best, but if you were young in 1967 you'd know why it is go great.

Really. Pls shut up.

It wasn't easy to find two people with NOTHING to of import, accuracy, or value on the subject, but Salon pulled it off. They're pretty tasteless bores on top of it.

Though written off early on as big on style but rather hollow, "Sgt. Pepper" is none the less a very strong album, even the sometime-cited-as-the-clincker "Mr. Kite" strikes me as a lot of fun. As for the Stones, their copy "Satanic Majastys" is a lot heavier on filler. Some don't like George's Indian stuff, but "Within Without You" is still stone beautiful.

So it's not the best Beatle album, but hardly the weak link in the chain (that would be, "Let it Be" in any incantation). Why the hype? As any armchair rock fan knows, it was the album that was supposed to take Rock beyond itself, into the relm of "ART." Thankfully, such pretentiousness was always undercut by humor where the Beatles were concerned.

This article could be replaced by a fart.

I rarely dive in to the Beatles fray and was amazed by the screamers of my day, but this artless piece is laughable.

It's probably the most aimless mess I've ever encountered at Salon. I thought I was reading a transcript of Entertainment Tonight.

I was particularly amused by the speculation about who should be dead; can't have a music review without that.

Sgt. Pepper was a very big cultural phenomenon back in 1967. It symbolized the interesting things that were happening at that moment. And, having become associated with that moment, it will continue to get more attention than it deserves from an aesthetic perspective. It is not a "concept" album, but a collection of very cool tracks, extremely well made, advanced yet accessible. With terrific packaging. So here we are 40 years later, with the news media calling attention to it one more time. That's show business.

The more interesting story from a musical perspective is the competition that was going on in the mid-sixties. In particular, the wonderful battle between Brian Wilson and the Beatles to outdo each other in the studio. The Beatles/Beach Boys chronology went like this: Rubber Soul 12/05, Pet Sounds 5/66, Revolver 8/66, Good Vibrations 10/66, Sgt. Pepper 6/67, Heroes & Villains 7/67 and Smile aborted (to be reborn in 2004). The Beatles and the Beach Boys appreciated each other. I think we can do the same.

By the way, the release of Sgt. Pepper didn't cause Brian Wilson's breakdown. It was surely a factor, but he had plenty of other problems to deal with.

OK, enough of that. I'm gonna go watch a movie.

SGT. PEPPERS might be my least favorite Beatle's album but it's still fanatastic, definitely influencial. It also has the best album cover of all time. Another thing I like about SP's is that it generally inspires a good discussion, this one is a notable exception. At least the comments section totally rocks. every single one of them is more worthy of my eyeball time. Like the Kennedy assassination, I can still remember the first time I read Gina Arnold's annoying, sef-obssessed prose in the EAST BAY EXPRESS.

The first problem with reviewing such as "Sgt. Pepper" as being "over-hyped" is that those who _begin_ with such a premise reveal that their knowledge not only of the times but also of The Beatles is lacking, and often riddled with falsehoods and jumblings.

And then there's the notion that the album is "lacking" because not "emotional". Not true, but hardly relevant, unless "rock," to be legitimate, must be anti-intellectual. (Much of it is; but does that result in it being "underhpyed"?)

And conflations. The Beatles impacted everything across the culture -- hairstyles, fashions, language, and of course music. But of those "Sgt. Pepper" is _music_; and as such it is "generation-defining" (what "rock" "critic" came up with that phrase in effort to appear intellectual?) _in music_. Calling it a "concept album" doesn't make it so; but it was light years beyond anything anyone else was doing. As was "Revolover". As was "Rubber Soul". As were "And Your Bird Can Sing," and "Ticket to Ride".

It has its downside, at least indirectly -- and it was Lennon who led The Beatles there and back out again: using the studio as an instrument; extensive "studio tricks," which as result of "Rubber Soul"-"Revolver"-"Sgt. Pepper" were made by others --- including such as the Firesign Theatre -- the norm. It was that, not "phony Beatlemania," the the generation or two after rebelled against with "punk". In fact, many of us who "grew up with" The Beatles (I was graduated from high school in June, 1967 -- "Sgt. Pepper" was the #1 LP, and "Whiter Shade of Pale" -- which band would come up with Crock-Rock -- was the #1 single) were about fed up with all the studio trickery which came after, as substitute for decent lyrics and music. And that includes the hype around "Led Zeppelin". The the fall of 1968, many of us had moved beyond that (try "Traffic," Traffic's second album; "Astral Weeks," Van Morrison, and, of course, "The Beatles"/aka "White Album").

As for the nonsense that "Sgt. Pepper" is "cold" or "unemotional". Go back and listen to The Beatles albums in order of release, from first through "Sgt. Pepper" (I prefer the US versions, as that's what I grew up with). By doing so, with one's presumptions bracketed, and ears open, one will discover that in fact The Beatles were quite emotional all through their recording career. The difference is that they didn't limit themselves to rage, and the juvenile notion -- imputed to "rock" by marketers -- that if it isn't "rebellion" then it isn't "rock". Buddy Holly "rocked," therefore was "rock"; yet Buddy Holly was not rebelling.

Rather, The Beatles have a wonderful exuberance, enthusiasm, joie de vivre, positivity (is that a word?). As Lennon put it: whenever they were discouraged and down, he'd say to the others, "Where are we going?" And the response was, "To the toppermost of the poppermost!" If one wishes to narrow one's conceptual abilities to only accept rage and anger and rebellion asw "rock," then you'll not only miss much music which recks and kicks ass -- yes, is "rock" -- but doesn't have a narrow, juvenie, eventually ossified closedness to that which doesn't fit one's presumption. Or, being embarrassed to be associated with the juvenile market-hype view that "rock" is rage and anger and rebellion, one will do as did such as Procol Harum: get pretentious and "crate" the monstrosity that is Crock Rock.

Oh, you call it "Progressive" or "Prog Rock"? That's yet another "overhyping" marketing term. As was/is "New Wave," a means to distinguish those who wore decent clothes in respect of their audience, and learned to play their instruments before seeking record contracts, from those who write lyrics one can't hear because they scream in rage over them.

So 20- and 30-somethings: stop the "historicism": get the facts about The Beatles, and get them right; and get the facts of the time in which "Sgt. Pepper" was released, instead of applying today's "standards" to then, and that LP.

The Beatles were not rebelling. But The Beatles were rockers -- _but not only_. And, The Beatles were a revolution, as know those who were listening to what was on offer for the 8 or so years prior to their arrival in the US.

Last but not least: The Beatles still outsell The Rolling Stones. And the latter are not impossible to like, if one sets aside your preconseptions and presumptions that "rock" must be anti-intellectual and narrow-/closed-minded.

Now go out and buy and sit down and _listen_ to "How Can You Be in Two Places at Once, When You're Not Anywhere at All," by the Firesign Theatre, for an exemple of the impact and influence of The Beatles. And listen to "The Beatles" (aka "White Album") until you grasp the fact that they covered the range of emotions -- including the sheer joy in "Obla-Di Obla-Da".

Or think "Monty Python" -- not a new form of comedy with them -- or their counterparts in music, "Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band" -- as The Beatles were dealing with the full pallet of human and musical colors available, notr only black and white.

If you refuse to also be silly, to appreciate the absurdity of things, then you'll not "get" The Beatles. And you'll miss -- and miss out on -- why "Sgt. Pepper" is considered the great album it is. Some of us children didn't grow up to be cynics. Or narrow-minded pea-brained "rock" "critics" who proclaim anti-intellectualism, rage, and rebellion the limits of "rock," or it ain't "rock".

The Beatles were fun, joyous and joyful, open-handedly generous. And they rocked, thus were/are "rock". But they weren't so limited or narrow as "rock" "critics" demand.