Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

196
Letters
Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:00 AM

Why is "Sgt. Pepper" so overhyped?

Why is "Sgt. Pepper" so overhyped?

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Friday, June 1, 2007 07:07 PM

Context is so important

The reason Sgt. Pepper was so impressive had nothing to do with what came later; it had everything to do with what had come before. It was the first "theme-album" (the Beach Boys later stated that Sgt. Pepper influenced Pet Sounds). The music and lyrics all hit themes that had not been done successfully before. It introduced new instrumentation and different scores for rock. It took technology to the limit of what was (then) possible.

Most importantly, it freed a bunch of other musicians to break loose from boundaries and go in new directions. Kurt Cobain probably was referring to this.

It is not constructive to only determine the impact of a work by comparing it to what came after. It must first be compared to what came before.

llk

Friday, June 1, 2007 07:07 PM

Stones v. Beatles

So Gina really thinks the Stones are a more influential band than the Beatles? I'll have whatever she's been smoking.

Friday, June 1, 2007 07:02 PM

Beatles Whup Ass

Stones suck.

How's that for criticism?

Stupid? Yeah. Just like this "review."

It was, quite literally, ground-breaking. Within a year, everybody else had gone psychedelic, they were trying to make complete stories out of their albums, and they were setting their A&R guys free in the studio. Lots of great music.

The Stones are great, too. Just not quite as smart as the Beatles, and besides, they were heroin addicts and crazy. And their idea of a good time led to Altamont.

Friday, June 1, 2007 07:01 PM

I see no contradiction

Between stating that the Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles but that the Stones should probably be dead by now.

Seems fairly simple, even obvious, to me.

Friday, June 1, 2007 07:00 PM

The Dave Clark Five was better!

That was the argument we had in the seventh grade. Glad to see that "rock critics" ... as necessary to the discourse as the appendix is to our bodies ... haven't stopped talking to themselves.

Friday, June 1, 2007 06:46 PM

Arnold is irrelevant

Gina Arnold wants it both ways: according to her, the Stones emerge winners vs. the Beatles, but asks why are Mick and Keith still alive? This is not lucid, but instead childish.

No mention of the obvious either: the Beatles never made a bad album. The Stones have made plenty.

The comparison between the two bands was historically invented and perpetuated by hack journalists, and ultimately was meaningless. They played in largely different styles througout.

Most Active Letters Threads

488

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
408

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
332

Palin: Birthers have "fair question" about Obama

Of Obama birth, the ex-governor says, "the public is still, rightfully, making it an issue" (Updated)
118

Is my kids making me not smart?

Stay-at-home fatherhood dulls my intellect to a nub. Excuse me while I ponder the subtext of "Hippos Go Berserk"
114

Trig, the anti-abortion straw baby

Sarah Palin's son is being used to demonize pro-choicers

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon