After I wrote about how I don't get the Star Wars phenomenon, why not rip another cultural institution? Because that's that's the kind of guy I am. I don't doubt that it was a revolutionary album and that it blew people's minds when it came out, but I think this may be the most overrated album in history.First off, it's not the best Beatles album, Abbey Road is. It's not the great leap forward in their sound, Revolver was. It's not the album which to this day screws with your mind, that's The White Album. It's not a bad album, after all, it is the Beatles, but even though no album could ever live up to the hype bestowed on Sgt Pepper's, this one certainly can't.
Influential? Sure. But how much of that influence was good? Bands started to turn away from music they could play live and rock went from a live experience to a studio experience. Bands started churning out concept albums, some of them good (The Who's Quadrophenia), some of them painfully awful (Rush's 2112). Sgt. Pepper's spawned 1970s prog rock, which is an almost unforgivable sin. We can trace bands like ELO, King Crimson, Rush, and Yes to this one album. Pretentious studio albums are a bad idea. Even when Radiohead makes them.
Maybe I had to be there. Maybe I haven't done enough drugs (or any drugs for that matter). Maybe I'm blinded by my hatred of the music which came in its wake. Maybe its my punk rock roots which are 180 degrees from Pepper's. Maybe its that a good live show will always beat the hell out of a great studio album. Maybe its that I just like being contrarian. But Sgt. Pepper's lives up to MacBeth's criticism:
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
12 comments:
You're a dick. And I don't even like the Beatles. My old roommates favorite two albums in the world were Abbey Road (he now lives in Abbey Road apartments), and Sgt. Pepper. I was made to listen to them again and again for a year. The first time, I was interested, after the 100000th time, I was annoyed. The album gave him giddy enjoyment, and that counts for something. Yes, the album was good. You acknowledge that. But, your critizism is more pretentious than that. You are bashing the album because it was not "groundbreaking" for a beatles album, and spawned an era where studio sound was prefered to live sound. First, BAD albums (2112, which I'm not so sure is so bad) are BAD, not because they can't be played live, but because they're bad (in the above case a 20 minute intro that goes nowhere). Next, studio masterpieces (especially if they're Radiohead) have quality and value of their own. Most of the music that you and I listen to is NOT Live. There are TONS of bands in YOUR library that you haven't seen live, and some you never will. When one of those bands makes a mega-produced GOOD album (like Sgt. Pepper) it will provide ME and YOU with hours of enjoyment, even if I will never see it live. That doesn't take away from the product. Why would require a admittedly GREAT band like the Beatles to produce a groundbreaking album every time? How 'bout an album that millions of people like to listen to. WOW, that album is overrated, it brightens millions of people's lives every day. If every album were groundbreaking, the word would loose all meaning. Sgt. Pepper is special specifically because of its popularity, even beyond the die hard Beatles fan. It transcends criticism (and that is very rare). By the way, Romeo and Juliet, was by no means "groundbreaking" either. I'll just call it " the Sgt. Pepper" of Shakespeare.
Love,
Matt
I agree that revolutionary doesn’t equal good. Not once do I make the argument that it does. But Sgt. Pepper’s reputation is built on the fact it is revolutionary. Don’t believe me? Go to the search engine of your choice and search for “sgt pepper’s” and “revolutionary”.
I got 49,700 hits. You?
Rolling Stone ranked it the greatest album of all time. You honestly do not get more “rated” than that. And it’s not even the best Beatles album. Is it good? Sure. I admit that. But it gets fawning praise directly BECAUSE it is revolutionary, when it is not. I believe Help! is a much better album, and its not revolutionary at all. Of course, it has one of the greatest songs ever recorded, “Yesterday”. If an album is gonna get heaped with massive amounts of praise, it has to be able to support that praise or else it will be, by definition, overrated. And Sgt. Pepper’s can’t support the praise. It is not beyond criticism. Nothing is beyond criticism. You hate Citizen Kane, arguably the greatest movie ever made. Is it beyond criticism because the AFI ranked it the greatest movie ever? Of course not. Or is it just things you like which are beyond criticism?
Your friend liked it? Whoop dee doo! My buddy Pittman, who posts in these comments, loves Matthew Sweet’s Girlfriend. Does that mean it is worthy of being labeled the greatest album ever?
And, yes, I believe overproduced albums which cannot be played live are a musical cul-de-sac which collapses under its own weight. Rock comes from folk, country, and blues. It is music which should be able to be created by four kids in a garage. As it moves away from that, and it becomes the domain of artists who are separate from us, it loses its resonance. We become mere receivers of the performance, instead of active participants. The band becomes “others”, talking down to us. Rock music is at its best when there is no barrier and the band and the audience are as close to one entity as possible. Putting up a wall is what destroys rock n roll. The net result of Sgt. Pepper’s was 70s prog rock, which has been thankfully consigned to the dustbin of history.
A lot of people liked it? Good for them. “Yes, Dear” is the #1 rated sitcom on TV. I’m not going out on a limb when I call that show a piece of crap. Titanic made a bunch of money. Does that make it a better movie than Casablanca?
The mere fact you believe I’m not allowed to criticize Sgt. Pepper’s demonstrates how overrated it is. It is a sacred cow which we are told is beyond criticism. It’s not. It’s a fairly soulless album which has the emotional resonance of an isolation chamber. It’s got neat studio tricks, but the songs are distant. The sound is studio tricks, but the songwriting is a trick as well. The songs really do mean nothing (except Day In the Life, which strangely enough, is the most studio tricky song on the album).
I don’t dispute being a dick. But its not because I think Sgt. Pepper’s is overrated. I even gave plenty of outs of “maybe its just me”. So my critique was fairly mild.
Oh, and Rush sucks.
It isn't popularity alone that makes the aalbum beyond criticism, it is also time. I criticize Citizen Kane, as you criticize this album. It doesn't mean that I'm "right to criticize" any more than you. Funny, the arguments you make to me about Citizen Kane sound strikingly familiar to "it's beyond criticism" arguments. Also, by your own assessment, the album WAS groundbreaking. When you argue that Sgt. Pepper set the groundwork for an entire genre of albums (that you apparently didn't like), it moves past "influential" into groundbreaking. I wouldn't necessarily put it in that category of groundbreaking for those reasons, but you do.
I only told the friend story, because it is the main reason I don't care that much for the Beatles in general. And if Rock and Roll is about bridging the gap, and Sgt. Pepper is something else, then maybe it's "groundbreaking" for that simple reason. If I had to guess, maybe transforming the "rock" sound into more of a musical tapestry using new methods of studio production turns it into something new. You don't like it. It sounds hollow to you. It is against everything rock stands for. If I concede all that, it still doesn't make it less groundbreaking to those people who love it. Bringing up Titanic and Yes, dear is a cheap shot. Even people who love those shows will concede that they are crap. Those belong to a classification of bad art in and among themselves. Sort of like the opposite of how I feel about the "evil dead." The point is, you've given all these reasons why you don't like the "net result" of the ground that the album broke. If it did break ground, and people like it, then the fandom is justified.
Love,
matt
Today there was a "global listening party" at Starbucks for McCartney's new album (translation: CD played on loop all freakin' day long in every store every-freakin-where). The blurb reads something like "an album worthy of the artist's legacy" which doesn't even make sense.
Oh yeah, I was tee-rilled.
Once again, you're arguing againast a statement I never made. You really need to stop doing that. Where do I say that fandom is unjustified? People are fans of all sorts of things. Somewhere out there, there's an obsessive Bangles fan. I hope he or she is happy. Be a fan of whatever you want.
I happen to be a huge fan of little kid sports movies. Just love 'em. Bad News Bears, Rookie of the Year, Little Giants, the Sandlot... you name it. Fandom does not need to be justified. But my fandom does not transform these into good movies (though the original Bad News Bears is a classic). That is not the argument.
My beef is not with fans. It is with critics who have annointed Sgt. Pepper's as the greatest album ever when I don't really think there's grounds to call it the greatest Beatles album. I'm taking critics to task, not fans.
Well then, we are both taking critics to task, aren't we?
The argument I'm making is that the critics have a point that is easy to justify. The argument you're making is that the critic's point is unjustified. I still maintain you defeat you're own argument by showing that the album was groundbreaking in a way that didn't pan out for your sensibilities. That alone should justify the critical response.
Anyway, I need to borrow you're The Hold Steady collection today. I need some serious listening time before Friday. Now THAT will be a groundbreaking evening.
Love,
Matt
You guys are silly.
Here's something off topic: Anna Lucia (two months old today) already has two favorite artists...and they are:
The Carpenters & Julio Iglesias
She actually has a distinct and positive reaction to both...and I've played her quite a few others...Beatles, Floyd, James Taylor, Jimmy Buffet, etc etc...
The funny thing is that those are two my parents' favorites...
--Papa Arguello
Don't bring me dooooooooooooooown...BRUCE!
Matthew Sweet's "Girlfriend" is a really great album. While I won't say it's the greatest album ever, I do think it may well be the greatest pop album of its era.
Also, I know almost nothing about the Beatles music. I know a few songs, but I can't match a single Beatles song to the album on which it appears. I don't deny the influence of the Beatles, but I've never been really into them, which is strange because I adore a good pop song. (See my love of "Girlfriend".)
I will say, however, that Rush seriously blows. As does Yes.
That, and while I rarely see a live show, live music is the soul of rock and roll, and any song or album which can't be effectively played live suffers for it. Not that it's necessarily bad, but I can't think of a single studio "trick" album that really resonates with me.
Contrast that to The Pixies "Surfer Rosa" which, while definitely not live, does not in any way rely on the studio setting to develop its sound. All of those songs COULD have been recorded in one take with just the 4 members of the band without really suffering. And guess what? It's one of the best albums ever made.
Still, I'm not sure why I was brought up in this conversation, but it's a good excuse to recommend Girlfriend to whoever hasn't heard it.
Poseur--
Does that mean you hate Steely Dan? They were the ultimate studio band.
It's all ebb and flow, anyways. Punk flourished because it was giving us what arena rock didn't, and I'll live and let live with ELO if that's what it takes to get me to The Damned.
Not a big fan of Steely Dan. Though I do like the fact it inspired the FedEx comercial: "Steely Dan is a band not a person. We get fringe benefits, not French benefits."
"We don't get French benefits?"
I do think ELO is perhaps the ultimate studio band. And the Damned could kick their ass. Black Flag would kick their ass, literally. Of course, Henry Rollins would beat up his own fans.
Hi,
I am regular visitor of this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]stepbaker.blogspot.com really contains lot of useful information. Do you pay attention towards your health?. Let me present you with one fact here. Research shows that about 90% of all USA adults are either obese or overweight[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] Hence if you're one of these citizens, you're not alone. Infact many among us need to lose 10 to 20 lbs once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? Quick weight loss can be achived with little effort. If you improve some of your daily diet habbits then, its like piece of cake to quickly lose weight.
About me: I am webmaster of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also mentor who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under hard training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effective weight loss.
Post a Comment