Jump to content
IGNORED

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Beitel

By Beitel
in Music

 Share

Recommended Posts

Beitel

Beitel

Posted
Posted

Today is exactly the 40st anniversary of one of the most important albums of all time. It's still a brilliant record and I've heard that a couple of bands and artists were asked to make a modern version out of it, so this topic also has some relevance. If only it would be celebrated with a new release were the sound is redone, Love was a great example of how it can make the experience richer.

But, most of all, it's a great reason to listen to it once again, and there's no way you can't enjoy listening to A Day In The Life one more time... :unsure:

sgt_pepper.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vimster

Vimster

Posted
Posted

It's a good album, it's certainly had a big impact on popular music.

However, what I can't stick are all these 60s types banging on about how great the 60s were and how the music was better then. They hold this album up as the zenith of musical achievement. Oh well, give it a month and they'll all go back to their 70s stereos and dusty old record collections.

As I write this there's a thing on PM on Radio 4 about the covers. They're selling it on the fact Travis, Oasis etc are having to record them "on the same 4-track equipment the Beatles did back then" ... woooo great :unsure:. If you have to sell songs on gimmicks like that then it must be a turkey. Remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beitel

Beitel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I expect the thread will be full of people saying that Revolver or The White Album is better or somesuch, but I still love this and it was one of the most groundbreaking albums ever. Hats off.

I prefer The White Album myself, but all post-Revolver albums are consistently masterworks so such a discussion is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick R

Nick R

Posted
Posted

I was first introduced to the Beatles' music by seeing the film Yellow Submarine (which I still really like). Several of the songs in that are from Sgt Pepper, so that was the album I always asked my mum to put on, so it was the one I became most familar with (that and Help!, the other Beatles film I was obsessed with). It wasn't until much later that I became familiar with things like Abbey Road, With The Beatles and The White Album. I don't know which is my absolute favourite, but Sgt Pepper is definitely up there.

It's well-known that Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were the first songs recorded for the album, but they were then released as a single and left off the album. The question is, if you could put them back, which of the album's tracks would they replace? I couldn't sacrifice any of them... well, except perhaps When I'm Sixty-Four. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beitel

Beitel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's well-known that Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were the first songs recorded for the album, but they were then released as a single and left off the album. The question is, if you could put them back, which of the album's tracks would they replace? I couldn't sacrifice any of them... well, except perhaps When I'm Sixty-Four. :unsure:

They're both on Magical Mystery Tour, along with songs like 'I Am The Walrus', one of my favorite Beatles-songs. No sacrifices needed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick R

Nick R

Posted
Posted
They're both on Magical Mystery Tour, along with songs like 'I Am The Walrus', one of my favorite Beatles-songs. No sacrifices needed. :unsure:

I know, I'm just asking the hypothetical question: if they'd been kept on the album in 1967 at the expense of two other tracks, which would you part with?

(And I love "I Am The Walrus" too... even more so after hearing The Rutles' version!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryptonian

Kryptonian

Posted
Posted
It's well-known that Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were the first songs recorded for the album, but they were then released as a single and left off the album. The question is, if you could put them back, which of the album's tracks would they replace? I couldn't sacrifice any of them... well, except perhaps When I'm Sixty-Four. :unsure:

Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite and Within You, Without You for me. When I used to listen to The Beatles a lot (when I was about 14 I think - that's when I bought SPLHCB) those 2 never grabbed me as much as the other tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
larrydavidsanger

larrydavidsanger

Posted
Posted
I expect the thread will be full of people saying that Revolver or The White Album is better or somesuch, but I still love this and it was one of the most groundbreaking albums ever. Hats off.

My personal preference would be for The White Album and Revolver as my joint favourites, then Rubber Soul and then Sergeant Pepper, but that's not to say it's a fantastic album, it really is, just I prefer the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
emjay2kay

emjay2kay

Posted
Posted
It's well-known that Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were the first songs recorded for the album, but they were then released as a single and left off the album. The question is, if you could put them back, which of the album's tracks would they replace? I couldn't sacrifice any of them... well, except perhaps When I'm Sixty-Four. :unsure:

My usual answer is to swap Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with Strawberry Fields, and When I'm Sixty Four with Penny Lane, though really it's only because SFF and PL are so brilliant and they would sort of fit in those positions, rather than LITSWD and WISF being rubbish.

Sgt Pepper is one of those albums that I sort of think "It's good, very good, but is it really that good?" Then I listen to it and go "Christ, this stuff really is amazing."

I'm not sure if it's my favourite album or not, but I certainly think it's their best. Song for song it can't really compete with Revolver, but as one complete album, it is quite possibly perfect.

A group of academics are meeting in Leeds this month to examine whether or not this really is the most influential/groundbreaking etc album ever made. Be interesting to see what they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scruffycat

scruffycat

Posted
Posted

I love this album, I don't think it's the best but yeah it's pretty damn good. Anyone on here read 'Revolution In The Head' the song by song breakdown of the Beatles? the period that covers this album is very interesting, well worth a look. I always used to think 'A Day in the Life' was the best song on the lp, but I have to say over the years I have come to absolutley love 'Within You Without You' for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darren

Darren

Posted
Posted
I really don't like it (apart from Day in the Life, which is wonderful). I don't understand why it's still thought by so many people to be one of their best. I like almost all of their other albums better.

I always think it's difficult for those of us who grew up in a post-Beatles world to imagine the impact they had at the time. To us Sgt Pepper is just another album and we evaluate it purely on its musical merits (like you I don't think it's anywhere near their best). But at the time I reckon it must have been like the moment in the Wizard of Oz where it changes from black & white into colour - I think people were blown away by the whole package which was so different from anything which had gone before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daedalus

Daedalus

Posted
Posted

I listened to my first Beatles album, Revolver, about a year, and found it quite dull. There were a few good tunes on it, but the lyrics were really bad and the music pedestrian to my ears. 'Eleanor Rigby' is interesting musically, but has flat lyrics. Why has it such a reputation? I think inevitably part of the anticlimax of my experience was set up by the hype. But after that? My favourite albums of the 60s - and the ones that literally scream out as being 'forward' or 'revolutionary' - are by Hendrix and the Velvet Underground. 'Pet Sounds' doesn't thrill me, but I can appraciate how well-constructed the songs are, and how it contributed to the development of the pop song. As I can with Chuck Berry and other 50s acts. But not the Beatles, at all. The first poster calls Sgt. Pepper's one of the "most important" albums, and this is quickly followed by somebody claiming it's one of the "most groundbreaking" ever. Why? What will those academics in Leeds be discussing? I don't wish to seem wilfully antagonistic to the current of opinion here; I'd love for people to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davros sock drawer

Davros sock drawer

Posted
Posted

I used to hate the Beatles, or thought I did, when I was a bit younger, say 20-ish.

I was cutting off my nose to spite my face.

You can get into the historical, social or technological significance of Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver, whatever. You can find out all about John and Yoko, the Maharishi, meeting Dylan, discovering LSD. Or, you can just listen to some great pop music and have lots of groovy new songs to hum to yourself. That's all it is really, good songs. My life is better for having heard Taxman, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Live, even fucking Octopus's Garden. It's folly to deny yourself, just don't expect too much of a revelation because more than likely the revolutionary aspects of the band's output have long since been absorbed and expanded on by bands you probably already know and love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
emjay2kay

emjay2kay

Posted
Posted
I listened to my first Beatles album, Revolver, about a year, and found it quite dull. There were a few good tunes on it, but the lyrics were really bad and the music pedestrian to my ears. 'Eleanor Rigby' is interesting musically, but has flat lyrics. Why has it such a reputation? I think inevitably part of the anticlimax of my experience was set up by the hype. But after that? My favourite albums of the 60s - and the ones that literally scream out as being 'forward' or 'revolutionary' - are by Hendrix and the Velvet Underground. 'Pet Sounds' doesn't thrill me, but I can appraciate how well-constructed the songs are, and how it contributed to the development of the pop song. As I can with Chuck Berry and other 50s acts. But not the Beatles, at all. The first poster calls Sgt. Pepper's one of the "most important" albums, and this is quickly followed by somebody claiming it's one of the "most groundbreaking" ever. Why? What will those academics in Leeds be discussing? I don't wish to seem wilfully antagonistic to the current of opinion here; I'd love for people to explain.

You found Revolver dull? What do you normally listen to? Revolver is probably the Beatles' most "modern" album, by which I mean the easiest for today's generation to connect with, and the album most people these days suggest is their best. Revolver has such a wonderful acidity to it that it still sounds incredibly fresh today.

Eleanor Rigby's lyrics flat? I don't understand what you mean. Do you think the story he's telling is dull? The way he describes it?

I honestly can't beleive anyone could listen to Revolver and claim it to be dull.

As for Sgt Pepper, I'd discuss it now but I want to watch the anniversary programme about it on BBC2 just now.

Same here. Don't think i could name one beatles song

That must be impossible. Children in third world countries can hum a Beatle tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept