The Beatles, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”

Chris McJaggerly:

Sgt. Pepper’s is supposed to be the greatest album of all time. So, where are the great songs? Most of the record is novelty songs and ditties, with cute strings, carnival sounds and vaudeville flourishes. With the exception of “A Day in the Life,” I cannot imagine any true Beatles fan mentioning a track on Sgt. Pepper’s among their top 20 from the band. (People who played “When I’m 64” at their 64^th birthday party don’t count.)Also, this was clearly a Paul McCartney record. Where was John Lennon? Other than “A Day in the Life” — which is astonishingly good (more about that later) — think about what Lennon contributed to Sgt. Pepper’s. There’s “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds,” which is famous because of the “is it about LSD or isn’t it?” controversy. But the bass line is stiff (this is hard to do when Paul McCartney is your bass player), the drum fills are lame, and the keyboard is dated and stale. The trippy lyrics are kind of fun, but I don’t consider “Lucy” anything close to a classic.Lennon also contributed “For the Benefit of Mr. Kite,” a dopey carnival song, and “Good Morning,” which blasts horns-and-chicken sounds at the listener. Lennon is one of my heroes, but it isn’t because of Sgt. Pepper’s. Then again, he did offer up everything but the bridge (which was McCartney’s) for “A Day in the Life,” the only song on the album with real, visceral power, even though it’s mostly quiet. The power comes from Lennon’s perfectly-calibrated, ghost-like singing and the slow-build with subtle piano and nice drum work from Ringo, and – of course, the awesome lyrics. I love it when a songwriter comes up with a vague phrase that still has a meaning that seems specific. “I’d love to turn you on” is one of those lines. It could mean anything, yet I feel like I know exactly what it means. So, maybe I should take it all back and sing Lennon’s praises.

But, I was on a roll, so I’m going to go back to bitching. The “concept album” aspect of Sgt. Pepper’s is such bullshit! The first two songs set up this “We’re not the Beatles, we’re this other fictional band playing a live show in front of an audience” theme, and they’ve got it working pretty well. I mean, I like the title track fine, and I really enjoy Ringo on “A Little Help From My Friends” (although Joe Cocker did it better). But then, for tracks 3-9, the theme is abandoned! What happened to Billy Shears and his mates? Are they the ones singing these ditties and carnival songs? Could they possibly be performing the sitar on “Within You, Without You”? Confusingly, the fictional band returns for the reprise of the title song (track 10), and then comes “A Day in the Life,” the mind-blow that finishes things off. Only, it doesn’t sound like a Billy Shears song, and doesn’t fit with the concept!

OK, now for a few words of praise. Lennon and McCartney (especially McCartney on this album) were great rock singers. Not only lead, but also background. What a great asset…if today’s rock bands could only sing like the Beatles, they could do so much more to keep their records interesting. Also, McCartney is one of the all-time great bass players. Listen to that bass line on “With a Little Help…,” bouncing up and down the fret board. It just makes you happy. And for a band not known for complicated drumming, the rhythm is pretty interesting on a few tracks, like “A Day in the Life,“ “Getting Better” (the bridge), and “Within You, Without You.”

By the way, I like the Eastern sound on “Within You,” which is probably my second favorite song on the album. Too bad, at five minutes, it’s too long. And too bad it’s sung by George Harrison, whose singing was so lifeless. He cannot hit a note hard, as a vocalist, to save his life. He might have learned to write great songs from John and Paul, but he never learned to sing like they did.

So, I’ve said a lot of bad things about Sgt. Pepper’s, which might not be fair if it weren’t for the fact that this is considered the best album ever. It clearly is not a bad album. But it isn’t even among the best Beatles albums. Abbey Road is WAY better, Rubber Soul and Revolver are clearly better. And I would even take the White Album over Sgt. Pepper’s, although the White Album has some weak spots. Put Sgt. Pepper’s up against the real powerhouse albums of rock history — albums like Exile on Main Street, London Calling, Who’s Next, and Nevermind, and it withers away. It just doesn’t hit you at the gut level, which is what rock music should do. Nothing makes you want to dance, or turn it up and play air guitar, or scream along with the lead singer.

Also, put it up against genuine thought-provoking albums, like Dylan’s folk and early electric stuff, and Sgt. Pepper’s (other than “A Day in the Life”) sounds kind of silly. I mean, come on… “Lovely, Rita, meter maid?” Sgt. Pepper’s clearly isn’t a great dance record a la Prince and Michael Jackson, or a soulful experience. It doesn’t even match up with other albums that are supposed to make you feel trippy and blow your mind, like “Dark Side of the Moon” or “OK Computer.” Sorry. Sgt. Pepper’s just isn’t the best record of all time.

Tom Heerman:

Well, I totally agree. I listened to Sgt. Pepper’s again last night, before I read your review. I kept thinking “Where is Lennon, and why on earth is this considered so good?” I am 54 years old, and I have played this one about once a decade. Each time I was kind of hoping this would be the time it finally hits me. Nope. This one is gonna take a huge hit in the rankings. I would not recommend it to an uninitiated listener. My score 29.

Kevin Decker:

Sgt. Pepper’s is not the best Beatles album, so it cannot be the best album of all time. But it is one of the 5 best Beatles albums, which makes it a top 10 album of all time. It strikes me that the album must be lauded by the Rolling Stone brass because it revealed an expanded universe of musical possibilities. That’s all fine and well, but for me a great album is great because it’s a great listen from the time of its release to 50 years later. It doesn’t matter to me whether it created a paradigm or was the fortieth based on that mold.With that said, Sgt. Pepper’s is a great album. It’s a great listen at a party, on a boat, in a car, at work, out for a jog, or anytime else. And that was true in 1967 just as much as it is in 2014 (although running around the park with a turntable on your back had to be tricky). There’s no mood necessary to enjoy Sgt. Pepper’s.The first three songs are wonderful, and each starts off absolutely brilliantly. The shift from the guitars to the horns in the song “Sgt. Pepper’s” is tremendous and sets the stage for musical adventure. “Getting Better” and “Fixing a Hole” are pleasant, and in retrospect are a bit of a breather before “She’s Leaving Home” and “Mr. Kite” take the album back to the heights established by the first three in Sgt. Pepper’s, “With a Little Help from My Friends,” and “Lucy.” Even “When I’m Sixty Four,” while silly, is a great song. Again, it’s great because it catches my ear and stirs my mind now just as it did when I first hear it, and will do so to the same degree in 50 years (assuming I’m still upright). There are many, many songs more intelligent, daring, and complicated, but that’s not the standard for me.

If an album could be great because of one song then the closing track of “A Day in the Life” might just be it. It’s got everything. It’s practically a summary of Sgt. Pepper’s the album. I’m sure entire music classes could be taught by breaking up that song into its many, yet seamless, parts.

I give the album 29 out of 33 1/3 points. I dock it a few points because it has “only” four truly timeless standards and because of the strange “Within You Without You” and “Good Morning Good Morning” (apparently I’m not a George guy, at least not on this album). Other than those distractions, the album is awesome and should be given a listen at least a few times a year.

Chris McJaggerly:

Yeah, Sgt. Pepper’s gets extra points from critics because it broke new ground. And I’m with you: what’s most important is whether listening to the album is a great experience here and now, not whether it was groundbreaking when it came out. But still, I’m willing to give a groundbreaking album a bit of an edge over another album that’s derivative, even if they’re otherwise equally fun to listen to.

My gripe with Sgt. Pepper’s is that it isn’t as fun to listen to as an all-time #1 album should be. There, you and I seem to disagree. You say it has four classic songs. I could quibble with that, but even if it’s true (I guess you think the four are the title track, “With a Little Help,” “Lucy,” and “A Day in the Life”), that doesn’t quite justify the lofty ratings the album gets. To score high with me, an album needs great songs throughout, not high highs and low lows. (I might regret saying that later, when I have to excuse “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” on Abbey Road, and “The India Song” on Big Star’s #1 Record, among other clunkers. But I intend to be hypocritical, so deal with it.)

On top of all that, Sgt. Pepper’s wasn’t quite as groundbreaking as people say. Sgt. Pepper’s was the first Beatles album to be released simultaneously, and in identical form, on both sides of the Atlantic. The version of Revolver that U.S. audiences heard in 1966 was watered down. The U.S. version of Revolver wasn’t quite as inventive – or as good — as the “real” version released in the U.K. So the ambition, studio effects and psychedelic mood of Sgt. Pepper’s were more of a shock to U.S. listeners when it was released in 1967 than they would have been if Revolver had laid the groundwork.

One other thing – did you guys listen to Sgt. Pepper’s on headphones? The stereo mix is really old school. Often the vocals are all in one channel. It’s kind of interesting, but I prefer the more contemporary way of mixing music, with the channels less distinct.

Connor Johnson:

Without this album, I have a hard time seeing Pink Floyd becoming as popular as they became — how does psychedelic rock become as popular and mainstream without this album?

Without this album, the Summer of Love has less of an impact in pop-culture and thus the hippy/counter-culture/youth movement of the 60s has less traction — Sgt Pepper’s came out in June of ’67, it was the album of the Summer of Love, and it was made by the most popular band in the world.

Without this album, the White Album weirdness doesn’t exist, the Abbey Road medley doesn’t exist, and the soul of Let it Be doesn’t exist. Yes, it’s a piss-poor example of a true concept album. But the fact that they were able to sell it as such allowed them to write song structures and melodies and lyrics that otherwise wouldn’t have existed in the Beatles universe. This album let the band get out of their way and start to actually write the music they were meant to write. Nothing that came after this album would exist in the same way if it weren’t for this album. Sgt. Pepper’s realized the Beatles’ influence. Before they were just incredibly popular; after, they’re groundbreaking and visionaries in many infinite ways.

Without this album, glam rock doesn’t exist. Without the structure of the guitar riffs in the title track or the drum sound in the reprise, there is no Ziggy Stardust or T. Rex or Rock ‘N Roll Animal-era Lou Reed. I’m serious. I honestly don’t see any of that happening without this album.

Without this album the Beatles are not the most influential rock/pop band of all time. Honestly I believe that.

But enough about the influence, on to the music.

Reasons Sgt. Pepper’s is overrated:

1. Brian Epstein needed a single to put out in early 1967, George Martin had just finished mixing “Strawberry Fields” and “Penny Lane,” they became the singles and were left off of the album. With those two songs, this album becomes even more strong.
2. They don’t stick to the concept album idea.
3. Not enough John.
4. I might not have had “Within You Without You” open side two, but that’s just getting nit-picky…

Reasons Sgt. Pepper’s is underrated:

1. Flow. This album has so much flow, it oozes flow, it is flow. It is so incredibly listenable from beginning to end. The production value is so high, transitions between songs are seamless, changes of pace aren’t jarring, the album is smooth as butter.
2. The performances. The band is in fine form. They aren’t touring anymore, they aren’t as exhausted, they’re becoming the studio wizards they were meant to be. Ringo’s drumming sounds great throughout. Say what you will about Ringo, but the dude’s fills were second to none. The vocals are great throughout. Obviously John and Paul sounds great, but Ringo does great on “A Little Help” and I think George’s “Within You” is incredible. He delivered the performance that song/sound deserved, it’s so full of subtle emotion, it’s one of the best parts of the album.
3. “A Day In the Life.” It’s a perfect song. It really is. Obviously one song doesn’t make a record, but if Michael Jordan has taught me anything, one incredible performer can make the surrounding cast better than they otherwise would have been.

Is it the strongest of the Beatles’ catalog? No. Not even close. But it lead them to their best work. And if we’re working with the template of what’s on Rolling Stone‘s Top 100 Albums, it is definitely in the top 20, if not the top 15. It deserves to be there on album flow and influence alone.

Is it in the top 20 of the actual best albums of all time? No. But for this exercise, it is. And you’re missing the point if you think otherwise.

I know you already rated this one, but if I had a vote, I’d give it a 28