...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.)

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?

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

Excuse me? You asked "...witty, insightful Gina Arnold, whose books, "Route 666: On the Road to Nirvana" and "Kiss This: Punk in the Present Tense," traced the history of the alternative-rock movement of the '80s and early '90s" for her take on the meaning and context of a touchstone of 1967? Politically,you note "it doesn't seem like a defining album for the generation of Mario Savio (sorry, WHO?) or Huey Newton"; AND "Musically speaking, "Sgt. Pepper" sounds much less contemporary than other albums from 1967 by people like Jimi Hendrix, the Doors or the Velvet Underground". Real typical of British culture then or now (or Canadian, eh?). Not that any of those three have anything at all in common with one another!

How typically, arrogantly, American. And in any case, what does "comtemporary" have to do it, and what exactly does contemporary mean? Isn't all music (all art) a product of its time? Although with respect to the historic validity of the album perhaps you should check your facts; check out the "ripped from the headlines" basis (in the UK) for "She's Leaving Home" for example (Google Melanie Coe if you don't know).

Gina and David are soo Y-gen, like Lost or Survivor. Meaningless escapades of non-signficance for the moment.

Your/Their SA on hype is an over achievement -- it puts them beyond the moon. Beyond Saturn. Beyond Neptune.

Around Uranus.

I'm a young'un (Sgt. Pepper's is 13 years old than I am) and only really delved deeply into the Beatles' catalogue in the past few years, but for my money it's no better than their 5th best record - Rubber Soul is IMO a clear-cut #1, followed by Revolver and the White Album in whichever order, then Help!. Marred as it is by crappy throwaways (Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus' Garden, et. al.) you can even make a case that Abbey Road is better.

Pepper's really only has one defining Beatles' song, the aforementioned A Day In The Life. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Within You Without You, and With a Little Help From My Friends are good but the Beatles did psychedelic (I Am The Walrus) and Indian influence (Love You Too) as well or better elsewhere, and being the best of their Ringo-droned pop songs doesn't exactly qualify WALHFMF for classic status. Some of the music-hall influenced stuff (e.g. When I'm 64) I find borderline unlistenable and usually skip when it comes up on my iPod.

Compare to an album like Rubber Soul which contains no fewer than 4 songs as good or better than Sgt. Pepper's best (Drive My Car, Norwegian Wood, Michelle, In My Life) as well as several overlooked tracks which I personally think are among the Beatles' best as well (Nowhere Man, The Word, I'm Looking Through You). I don't there really is a comparison.. and for musical diversity Revolver easily rivals if not surpasses Pepper's (Eleanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never Knows, etc.)

The only thing Pepper's has going for it is the concept, and the memorable cover art. It's a great album (I think excepting Yellow Submarine the Beatles didn't release anything but) but it's not their greatest or the greatest album of 1967. I think you can even make a good case that it wasn't even in the top 5 of 1967 releases. I have a hard time saying it's definitely better than The Doors, The Velvet Underground & Nico, Something Else By The Kinks, Are You Experienced?, or Disraeli Gears.

Oh, and additional demerits for inspiring the legions of crappy, pretentious concept albums by crappy pretentious art rock bands that followed in its wake.

Uh....marijuana and so forth, anyone?

This has to be the most pathetic and least knowledgeable take on music that I've read in a long time. Full disclosure: I'm 60 years old and heard music from the 60s as it was occurring not years later.

First, my wife was the punk rock queen of Atlanta on the radio for 10 years, and Sex Pistols, The Clash and Ramones are romantic music in my house. BUT, the Ramones, much as I like them, weren't very interesting musically, and certainly not even in the same league as the Stones. Yes, the Stones truly sold out later, but listen to pre-1970 Stones, and there's stuff there the Ramones could only dream about. Listen to 5X5 or Sympathy for the Devil.

Sgt Pepper wasn't the interesting Beatles album. Try Revolver or Rubber Soul or even the White Album. Given where I was at the time, Magical Mystery Tour was my fave.

Finally, where is mention of the Kinks, the first punk band in history. What about the roots of modern political rap: Whitey's on the Moon or The Revolution will not be Televised. What about the Yardbirds? I really hate it when someone who grew up in the 80s or later talks about 60s music with no sense of what else was happening at the time.