Two teenagers tell us how much they hated reading The Scarlet Letter.

The songs didn't have a good beat, and you couldn't dance to any of them (well, most anyway). And isn't that the true measure of value for rock & roll music?

Wow, what a great "review" this was...as if you could call a few give and takes between two hacks to be a "review".

And then there's this howler: the Stones have outsold the Beatles? Uh, not exactly. The Beatles have sold an estimated 500 million records worldwide, and counting. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-05-04-google_x.htm

The Stones have sold an estimated 100 million records and counting.

http://www.abo.fi/~jbacklun/moneymen.htm

That took me about 10 seconds of basic Google searching.

I also love "the Stones are not likable". What in the hell does that have to do with what the topic of this "debate" was supposed to be: namely, how does Sgt. Pepper stack up musically in retrospect? More importantly, what does that have to do with ANYTHING relating to music?

You people voted for Hubert Humphrey...and you killed JESUS

Gina Arnold shows her lack of historical perspective when she says "I don't buy it as a generation-defining album. I think that's been put on it in retrospect." I was there; I remember 1967. That album struck like a bolt of lightning. Everyone under 25 was listening to it, talking about it, and 95% of us were praising it.

You can argue that it hasn't stood up artistically. I don't consider it the best album of the era. But it is unquestionably the most influential. And for many years, it was the holy grail of rock music.

Lincoln

. . . and a big fan of all music. Trust me, Sgt Pepper was like nothing that we had ever heard before. It may be hard to imagine now, but it was groundbreaking at the time. Someone else said it best. You have to judge an album as groundbreaking based on what came before, not after.

One of the reviewers said the songs weren't personal. At the time, to my young ears, "Fixing a Hole", "Getting Better", "A Little Help From My Friends", "When I'm 64", and "Good Morning" were personal and meaningful. Still are. Guess it's in the ears of the listeners.

I don't live in the past. I listen to current music and rarely listen to music from my teens and 20s. But if anyone says the Beatles weren't amazing in their time I have to speak up.

"Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane" were not on SPLHCB for the same reason the Beatles never put their singles on albums. By and large, they felt it would be a cheat to make the customers pay twice for the same music. What sort of business sense would this make today? In Britain, the single was always separate from the album:

1963

Single: "I Want to Hold Your Hand" b/w "This Boy"

Album: "With The Beatles"

1964

Single: "I Feel Fine" b/w "She's A Woman"

Album: "Beatles for Sale"

1965

Single: "Day Tripper" b/w "We Can Work it Out"

Album "Rubber Soul"

1966

Single: "Paperback Writer" b/w "Rain"

Album: "Revolver"

1967

Single: "Strawberry Fields Forever" b/w "Penny Lane"

Album: "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"

1968

Single: "Hey Jude" b/w "Revolution"

Album: "The Beatles"

1969

Single: "Get Back" b/w "Don't Let Me Down"

Album: "Abbey Road"

To be fair, '69 was a bit of a jumble. The single came out of the aborted "Get Back" sessions, while the big single from "Abbey Road," "Come Together" b/w "Something," was actually on the album. But who cares, because it was the year the band fell apart anyway.

Two points from all of this:

1. The Beatles were an altruistic bunch

2. They made albums so good that they didn't have to be carried by singles.

I am 45 and I have often felt like I am one of the few people who dislike the later Beatles (post-Revolver) music and really like the early (pre-Revolver) music. I find St. Pepper to be plodding and overdone. I think that early Beatles music is joyous, fun, has great singability and is great to dance to. But it seemed as the 60's progressed and the more drugs they did, the duller the music became. So, I agree basically with Gina and David. I can see how the production was revolutionary at the time, but if the songs are no fun then production cannot save them. So it was good to read that someone else is on my wavelength. Thanks!

As the old saying goes...if you remember the 60's you weren't there. I was in college in California at the time and believe me that was the case. Nonetheless I fought many a verbal battle with my room-mate on the Beatles vs. Stones issue...(although I don't think we ever argued over or even discussed Viet Nam). At this point in time I'd have to say this. The Stones were the premier rock band of the time without doubt. The Beatles were in a category and a league of their own. They were brilliant but they were not a rock and roll band.

Tell me it's a joke. A bit of provocation on the part of Salon to stir up a reaction from geezers like me? That's what this column must be. Otherwise it's pure nonsense, ill-informed and poorly considered. Even if Salon's critics don't enjoy the music, there's no denying that Sgt. Pepper was a cultural watershed, one that changed the lives of millions of us. To relegate it to being an "overhyped" and, by implication, irrelevant bit of pop flotsam is just plain wrong. This column reads like filler from the back pages of a college newspaper. It is certainly too shabby to warrant publication in a forum of Salon's stature.

Amerikanerin, I'm with you. If you listen to "Classic Rock" radio stations, you would swear the Beatles made only three albums: The Beatles (White Album), Abbey Road and Let it Be. Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour were sort of swing albums. Please Please Me through Revolver, the albums made between '62 and '66, are the most alive and vital records The Beatles made, but a lot of people don't regard them as worthy of serious consideration on any level. Fuck 'em. If I was forced to name a favorite Beatles year, it would be 1963, an explosion of harmony, backbeat and screams. What could be more exciting? The Beatles took everything that had come before -- Carl Perkins and Elvis, The Miracles, the Shirelles, the Coasters, the Everly Brothers, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly -- claimed it for their own and gave it to the world.

There's an interesting "Lion in Winter" profile of McCartney in this week's New Yorker. A lot of it doesn't shed new light on what longtime fans like myself already know, but he makes an observation that in the earlier days it was George Martin and the other grownups at EMI Abbey Road who would say, "We're working from 10:30 to 12:30 today and we're going to get two songs done." John and Paul would play their latest songs, and quite frequently it was the first time George or Ringo would have heard it. Nevertheless, within 15 minutes they would have an arrangement fairly well mapped out, and within an hour they'd know what they had. They laid a few eggs (most of them are on the "Anthology" discs), but most of the time they would produce if not a hit then something serviceable.

With Sergeant Pepper, that process became much more drawn out. Ringo calls Sergeant Pepper, "a wonderful album, but I learned to play chess while we were making it." In the book "The Beatles Recording Sessions," you learn that it took two-and-a-half weeks to get "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" cut to Paul's satisfaction (and to the others' vexation).

So maybe there is a virtue to being in a situation in which the clock is running and the grownups are telling you what to do.