What is it with Sgt Peppers? - Music - Forums : Best Ever Albums

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Midas wrote:

Joanna, Yes they are two different albums one is Baroque pop album in Pet Sounds. Sgt Pepper goes through the Proggish "A Day in the Life", World Music of "Within You Without You', Psych,Raga Electronic of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, Art Song "She's Leaving Home", Psychedelic musique concrete of "Being for the Benefit Of Mr. Kite" to the poppy stuff of "Getting Better" and "Lovely Rita". I don't hear anything but baroque music on Pet Sounds. The time signatures changes on "Good Morning" is very proggish compared to Pet Sounds.

One thing about the album Joanna you don't get is the With a Little Help in My Friends is really one song with Sgt Pepper. To the Beatles haters you keep mentioning Pet Sounds was it the only album they ever created compared to the Beatles?

My point is that they are also two different albums in terms of emotion. Pet Sounds doesn't genre-hop, but that's a positive for me. It sounds more focused, consistent, and makes for a more powerful experience. Maybe the Beatles could have traded some of that experimentation in for a little emotion and more profound subject matter.

I get everything about the album. The whole fake band concept was superfluous, even with that one song. It is a reflection of, and an excuse for their insincerity. Also, that's part of my problem with labeling this a concept album. Take away the title and the artwork, and it's just an album. There's really no concept. Sandwiching a bunch of songs between the "Sgt. Pepper's..." song and reprise, and dressing up in costumes is a poor excuse for a concept album.

To answer your other question, I like "Today!" by the Beach Boys. I would put that up against any Beatles album. We can only speculate on Smile! but listening to the 2004 release of that album, I have a feeling that the title of this thread would have been "what is it with Smile!," had that been released.

Midas

Well Smile was not released and you got it's alternative Smiley Smile which sort of ruined the Beach Boys reputation. Now imagine if "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Penny Lane" and "Its All Too Much were on Sgt Pepper.

The Beatles were not making music like the future progressive rock bands like the Nice, King Crimson, GENESIS, Renaissance but that does not mean they were not progressive but hey it was 1967. Why does it matter to you and people who are Scaruffi followers? They were progressive enough a lot of the times. "Strawberry Fields Forever" very progressive. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. Then are changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff.

Last edited by Midas on 04/01/2009 19:10; edited 1 time in total

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Midas wrote:

Joanna, Yes they are two different albums one is Baroque pop album in Pet Sounds. Sgt Pepper goes through the Proggish "A Day in the Life", World Music of "Within You Without You', Psych,Raga Electronic of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, Art Song "She's Leaving Home", Psychedelic musique concrete of "Being for the Benefit Of Mr. Kite" to the poppy stuff of "Getting Better" and "Lovely Rita". I don't hear anything but baroque music on Pet Sounds. The time signatures changes on "Good Morning" is very proggish compared to Pet Sounds.

One thing about the album Joanna you don't get is the With a Little Help in My Friends is really one song with Sgt Pepper. To the Beatles haters you keep mentioning Pet Sounds was it the only album they ever created compared to the Beatles?

My point is that they are also two different albums in terms of emotion. Pet Sounds doesn't genre-hop, but that's a positive for me. It sounds more focused, consistent, and makes for a more powerful experience. Maybe the Beatles could have traded some of that experimentation in for a little emotion and more profound subject matter.

I get everything about the album. The whole fake band concept was superfluous, even with that one song. It is a reflection of, and an excuse for their insincerity. Also, that's part of my problem with labeling this a concept album. Take away the title and the artwork, and it's just an album. There's really no concept. Sandwiching a bunch of songs between the "Sgt. Pepper's..." song and reprise, and dressing up in costumes is a poor excuse for a concept album. Not to knock the Beatles. I'm sure they could have come up with a true concept album, if they wanted to. The Beatles didn't even approve of this being called a concept album.

To answer your other question, I like "Today!" by the Beach Boys. I would put that up against any Beatles album. We can only speculate on Smile! but listening to the 2004 release of that album, I have a feeling that the title of this thread would have been "what is it with Smile!," had that been released.

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Midas wrote:

Are you serious the Beatles never rocked hard have you heard of "It's All Too Much", "Revolution", "Helter Skelter" or "I Want You (She So Heavy). Have you heard there version of "Long Tall Sally" it spanks all over the Kinks version. The Beach Boys make one classic album and you guys think they are better than the Beatles who have about six classic albums.

Okay, they did rock on those few songs, but not hard (sorry to nitpick here). They always sounded out of their element, to me at least, when they tried to rock hard. I'll give them points for trying, but they just weren't capable of really rocking hard. That's just weren't what they were about, and that's fine.

Midas

Ok then if you like Today the Beatles still had Abbey Road, The White Album, and Magical Mystery Tour.

Well Smile was not released and you got it's alternative Smiley Smile which sort of ruined the Beach Boys reputation. Now imagine if "Strawberry Fields Forever","Penny Lane" and "Its All Too Much were on Sgt Pepper. They were recorded during the Pepper session along with the unreleased "Carnival of Light". I gather you are Scaruffi person so I will say this it started with the Beatles releasing Rubber Soul and Brian Wilson being impressed with the quality of the songs. But I am not Scaruffi person and I believe more in the song rather how experimental or avant a song is. Most people view the song as the most important aspect in music.

The Beatles were not making music like the future progressive rock bands like the Nice, King Crimson, GENESIS, Renaissance but that does not mean they were not progressive but hey it was 1967. Why does it matter to you and people who are Scaruffi followers? They were progressive enough a lot of the times. "Strawberry Fields Forever" very progressive. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. Then are changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff.

Midas

Ok, I am not one of those Beatles fans who think they invented Heavy Metal that could goes to Hendrix or Cream. I never thought "Helter Skelter" or "Revolution" as heavy metal though I think it's closer to Alternative Rock than it is to proto-metal.

IMO the Beatles could rock as hard as Stones its just they always layered it with thick vocal harmonies that makes it sounds very poppish. You blast "Everybody Got Something to Hide" on it's last two sections it's very proto-punkish. Listen to "It's All Too Much" it has some strong proto-metal elements on the song.

Last edited by Midas on 04/01/2009 19:30; edited 1 time in total

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Midas wrote:

Well Smile was not released and you got it's alternative Smiley Smile which sort of ruined the Beach Boys reputation. Now imagine if "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Penny Lane" and "Its All Too Much were on Sgt Pepper.

The Beatles were not making music like the future progressive rock bands like the Nice, King Crimson, GENESIS, Renaissance but that does not mean they were not progressive but hey it was 1967. Why does it matter to you and people who are Scaruffi followers? They were progressive enough a lot of the times. "Strawberry Fields Forever" very progressive. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. Then are changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff.

Stop with the Scaruffi comments, please. I actually like the Beatles, although I feel they are overrated, and a lot of people have this idea that the Beatles and their experiments existed in a world full of Chuck Berries (weird making his name plural like that) and barbershop quartets. The fact is, the 60s was a time for heavy experimentation in the music scene. Some people beat the Beatles to the punch, in a few instances. Some of those people inspired the Beatles. The Beatles inspired a lot of people. Some people were incorporating raga influences (Kinks and the Yardbirds) before the Beatles. The Beatles made it famous and, some would say, perfected. When Beatles were using 8-track recording, Zappa was using 12 and 16, but you don't hear about that. While the Beatles were making "Strawberry Fields Forever", experimental in its own right, Jefferson Airplane was doing song suites and 9 minute jams and rocking hard. There was a lot of stuff going on. Trying to find who was really doing what first, will send you on a silly scavenger hunt, since a lot of these similarly innovative songs were released months and sometime weeks apart. And then you have to check recording dates. And then you have to find out which bands knew each other, and knew of each other, etc. It seems like everyone just wants to give credit to the Beatles for everything, by default.

Hey, I'll give you the Beatles as proto-prog. Hey, if Fripp said they were an influence, that's enough for me. However, that doesn't really impress since I, and a lot of other people, think that Zappa was making actual prog while the Beatles were still hinting. How can you hint at a genre that already existed? Of course, "prog" didn't exist in 66-67, and Zappa wasn't the international superstar he would soon become, but we have the hindsight now to say that maybe the Beatles weren't that progressive.

Midas

I always thought it was unfair why the Beatles have to be first for anything but others it did not really matter. The Yardbirds and the Kinks were not the first to even use eastern influences in rock music that would be the Seventh Sons. The Beatles do get credit for using the classical Indian music in structure and instrumentation. There is no "Love You To" of fusion going on with the Yardbirds or the Kinks.

Check again Surrealistic Pillow has only one song over five minutes while Sgt Pepper has two over five minutes.. S.F. Sorrow has no songs over five minutes and Piper at the Gates of Dawn has one song over five minutes. Does it really matter how long a song is? It's the quality that matters.

The Beatles might not have 16 track technology but the Beatles did encourage George Martin to use the technique known as bouncing down, in which a number of tracks were recorded across the four tracks of one recorder, which were then mixed and dubbed down onto one track of the master 4-track machine. The Beatles also instigated the invention of Automatic Double Tracking which is now a common recording technique.

The Beatles do have the unreleased 14 minute version of "Carnival Of Light" that will be released one day. I view Zappa as being prog before the Beatles but they were trying to merge it with pop music. That's the point I am making and that deserves some credit IMO. Like it or not Pop Music is a genre of music.

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Didn't know that about the Seventh Sons. I'll have to check that out.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was referring to "After Bathing at Baxter's" when I spoke of JA. That came out after "SFF", but in 67. Zappa was an influence, by the way, and worked on their sound collage.

Not every long song is good. A lot of jams from that time, as well as today, can be a little too ambitious. However, to even record something over 5 minutes, let alone 9 or 10, during that time period, was truly progressive. That's something where the Beatles followed suit, and not often, or as effective. Even if a specific song was not great, at least the band attempted to move away from the typical pop structure. Piper not only has "Interstellar Overdrive", but other sonically progressive songs, especially the instrumental pieces. Floyd was also using the "studio as instrument", something that not only the Beatles were doing.

The Beatles are rightfully credited with a lot of studio techniques, but how much of that is George Martin, having all-access to the high-tech Abbey Road, and having the money to bring in an orchestra? Not that they should be blamed for being rich, but citing that kind of stuff just seems to be a testament to their resources, than their actual music, for me at least.

I'm interested in hearing "Carnival of Light". I'll admit that I'm not into pop music that much, and I do prefer extended jams to experimentation within a safe, 3:30 minute time frame. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy it for what it is. I accept your point, and the Beatles have done a lot in regard to pushing the boundaries of pop/rock. My point is that the more progressive bands, in my opinion, are the ones that abandoned the pop structure and created and helped create completely different genres of music that was, for the most part, unclassifiable at the time. The music of VU, Zappa, Floyd could only be appropriately labeled in hindsight, because it was that revolutionary. The Beatles, on the other hand, I think, don't warrant the label of anything beside pop/rock and psychedelic, despite their experimentation, because they were still working within an established context.

maxxy

Gender: Male
Location: PA

Holy FUCK this thread was only created today!
Sgt. Peppers almost made my list. I enjoy it greatly, as I have for several years. Probably the Beatles' strongest album.
Overrated? Sure, but only because so many sites/people say its the best album ever, which it's not. Easily top 50 though, and a serious contender for top 10 or so.
_________________
"I'm so ugly but that's OK cause so are you"