I really liked Sgt Pepper's when I was a kid, but I've come to prefer their earlier albums (up to and including Revolver). I actually think the music on Sgt Pepper's isn't as good as their earlier work. Apart from a greater amount of faux-classical ornamentation and (albeit impressive) studio trickery, I don't see how it's that different from Revolver or Rubber Soul, except that the songs on those albums were better crafted. And, even though there's probably no-one following this thread anymore, Pet Sounds ('66) pre-dated Sgt Pepper's ('67), so I don't see how it could have been influenced by it.

I'm reminded of Grampa Simpson's immortal words:

"I used to be 'with it,' but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm 'with' isn't 'it,' and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me."

In his great book, "Rock From the Beginning." At this point, your dialogue comes across as the "Beatlemania" of Beatles-bashing: not the original article, just a watered-down, warmed-over rehash.

A few observations:

- What source does Gina Arnold use for her statement that the Rolling Stones sold more records than the Beatles? That's simply not true. The Beatles had 18 Number One singles, compared to the Stones' 8, and the Beatles' albums consistently, and significantly, outsold the Stones' - up to and including all three volumes of the "Anthology" series in 1995 and '96, and "1" in 2000, all of which made Number One on the Billboard album charts. The Stones' albums of that period did not.

- Leaving aside commerce, there's Gina Arnold's notion of what constitutes art: "The Beatles weren't talking about their feelings; the album's not about any specific person. It's about Lovely Rita the meter maid and the girl who's leaving home." This strikes me as a truly chowder-headed way of looking at any kind of art. "Sherwood Anderson wasn't talking about his feelings; "Winesburg, Ohio's" not about any specific person. It's about a guy with snagged gloves and a woman who walks off naked into the night." Or: "James Joyce wasn't writing about about his feelings; "Dubliners's" not about any specific person. It's about a guy who falls in a bar and a bunch of people at a party." It's easy fun to lampoon a statement as dumb as Arnold's, but the statement itself is useless as an approach to critical analysis. It is, on the other hand, a wonderful, if unwitting, capsule definition of solipsism.

- For as long as she's been writing about music, Arnold has made it very clear that she resents the way Boomers are supposedly only willing to listen to music from a very small window of time, that being the late 1960s. The irony is that she does exactly the same thing, with the late 1980s/early 1990s replacing the late 1960s.

- This dialogue would have been a lot more interesting if a third voice had been added - one who challenged both speakers' lazy assumptions. As it is, we have nothing but an echo chamber: "You're right!" "I know! You're right, too!" "We're both so right!"

- "I think the Beatles are amazing - I could gladly live out the rest of my days on a desert island with a copy of the "White Album" as my only musical company. 2) I think "Sgt. Pepper" is an excellent album and way, way better than 95 percent of rock music ever recorded." That's big of you, David - I'm sure the Beatles are relieved.

- Isn't "overhyped" redundant? "Hyped" by itself means a thing has been talked about too much, so wouldn't "overhyped" be the linguistic equivalent of a "free gift"?

"Sgt. Pepper" may or may not be overrated. But I respect the imaginative daring and playfulness that drove it, and the empathy for other people's lives that fills its best songs. That last quality doesn't seem to interest Gina Arnold, but that's her loss.

At this point discussing the significance of Sgt Pepper

is like arguing about the importance of oh.. air. But here are my

thoughts about it generated by the many posts. I admit

upfront that I'm a "Beatle Baby" ie. a 51 yr old boomer

so the Beatles are sort of like "Air" to me (note to Gen Xers

I'm not refering the the boring French psuedo disco electronic

duo). Also although I love the Beatles "Pepper" not my favorite Beatle album.

1. Yes it's great, Yes its of it's time but that doesn't make

less great or less of an achievement.Are many of the songs

individually as good as songs from other Beatle records?

Probably not for me. It's more of a piece which makes it

hard for me to think of most of the songs individually out

side the context of the record itself to a large degree.

Maybe that's a great thing in it's favor.

2. Historical point. It's really the last record where

the Beatles as a unit worked pretty much collectively.

The last time they really enjoyed working together with

a sense of unity that the albums that followed didn't have.

(even though the White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be/Get Back

are great in their own ways). This well documented in numerous

places as from 67 on they were basically in the process

of a protracted implosion and breakup. I think for all

it's complexity you can still sense this joy of

collaboration in the music on Sgt Pepper.

3.The Beatles really are better than Rap,Beck,Feist,Bright Eyes

Wilco the Decemberists and all the current chronic touted

in this column in Salon. Sorry kids let the hate mail begin.

I wish there was something like the Beatles now..I really do.

I wish I could here something like Sgt Pepper with the ears

of a 11 yr old again.

Tiddey

Mr Pillhouse wrote

To the guy who said the Ramones were better than the Stones... I don;t even like the Stones much (at all), but the Ramones were clearly a bunch of talentless, grating crackers. God I hate that music.

I do hope that wasn't referring to my earlier comment. I am probably the only person who hates the frigging Ramones more than he does. The Ramones were to punk what Kiss were to metal.