Bands And Albums.

The Beatles' 1967 recording entitled 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' is considered by most rock critics and pop historians as the very best album ever recorded. There was a lot of mystery surrounding that album when it was released (so I've read) and it truly is a fascinating listen. I don't believe it's possible to contend what is the 'best' record of all time - obviously, there isn't a way to really measure that. However, it has proven to especially influential and important in the evolution of Pop and Rock music. I happen to agree because it's one of the very best I've ever heard, along with 'Pet Sounds' by the Beach Boys and 'Highway 61 Revisited' by Bob Dylan... If you've heard 'Sgt. Pepper', do you agree with it's rating as the very best? Great? Good? Bad?

I am an avid Beatles fan (plus a drummer) and I do agree with your opinon of Sgt. Peppers, it is a fantastic album.

Agree, it's difficult/pointless to define "very best album" ever. What Sgt. Pepper's was is a real landmark in the direction of popular music, marking a movement towards considering artists on an album-by-album basis, rather than on their latest single release and radio airplay.

Regarding "mystery," the Beatles had stopped touring and they were in the studio a long time (an extremely long time by the standards of the day) on this one. Plus, they had released the Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane single and accompanying promo film, which showed that they were up to something REALLY different. (Those two songs were 2 of the first tracks done during the Sgt. Pepper's sessions.)

Anyway, anticipation was high, and the album -- from the incredible cover art to the final booming chord on A Day in the Life -- did not disappoint (I was 13 at the time and was totally blown away!).

Here's the kicker: The whole album was done on a four-track machine! Think about that. No 8-track, no 24-track, no 72-track, no ProTools! Get a copy of Geoff Emerick's book, Here, There, and Everywhere. Geoff was the Beatles' engineer at EMI from Revolver through Abbey Road (although he quit during the White Album and wasn't involved in Let It Be). Absolutely fascinating look at the true musicianship and creative engineering needed to pull something like this off in 1967.

Bluesnrock,

I can't tell you how happy I am to hear from a Rock music fan that knows his history and what he's talking about (though I'm sure you don't need me for corroboration!).

I'm quite envious that you got to grow up with such fantastic Rock and Roll (when I was thirteen everybody was listening to KoRn - forgive me for capitalizing the R...). That truly is amazing that Sgt. Pepper was recorded with only a four-track! That makes me want to purchase one so I can finally record (I'm certain they're relatively cheap now!). If such an artistic achievement can be done on a four-track then who needs modern equipment? I think that 'old' sound is a lot better and more charming anyway. I don't know of any 'overly produced' modern-Rock albums that will be considered a timeless masterpiece.

I'm intrigued now about how the Beatles were recorded and will definitely give that book a read.

How do you like their preceding record, Revolver? It is personally my favorite Beatles record and probably my favorite record of all time. It's so difficult to find such colorful and masterful musicianship from a Rock band - they truly were geniuses. A couple albums that come close to what the Beatles did through their entire career, in my opinion, would be the Beach Boy's Pet Sounds and Van Morrison's Astral Weeks. Though Blonde On Blonde by Bob Dylan/Hawks is probably more deep than those records combined.

BEST SITE;PUT VIDEOS ON HERE EVERYTHING

JOIN;BEST SITE FOR MUSICIANS

:) I am an avid Beatles fan (plus a drummer) and I do agree with your opinon of Sgt. Peppers, it is a fantastic album.

Rubbish album! full of crap songs

Rubbish album! full of crap songs

I'm intrigued (and aghast)! What would you consider the very best record ever recorded? The most important/influential?

There isn't one. No album is important and all music is influential to someone.

Personally Sgt Peppers influenced me not one jot and I don't like any of the music on it.

Macleod,

I completely understand your last post and agree that all music influences somebody. Sgt. Pepper is widely considered the most influential album because of the widespread impact the Beatles had internationally (and not just in music). It's a watershed because it helped tear down barriers that led to everything that came after. Most everything in music can be traced back to this 1967 recording and that's why it's considered the 'most influential.'

My only problem with your posts is that you claim Sgt. Pepper is full of crap songs. I find, and many others do as well, that the songs are all completely brilliant in their composition, arrangement, execution and production. Did you mean to say that the songs simply don't appeal to you or do you literally mean that the compositions are crap?

No I actually meant they are crap. And many others think so too.

Its all music press hype as usual. Regarded as the most influential album ever?? by who??. Music writers and critics?

They are full of crap just like the album I'm afraid

well davis I'm afraid you may have met your intellectual match here in "the wicked witch of the west"!






hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Unfortunately, I agree with MacLeod on this one, lol. While I don't think all of the songs in and of themselves are "crap," as our good buddy MacLeod has stated, there isn't a single thing The Beatles have out that has directly influenced me in any way, shape or form. One can sit and argue all day that they did because of current bands potentially containing members who were influenced by them and if not for a current band you're into, then maybe a band that THEY'RE into has someone in it who was influenced but that's just a little bit ridiculous. For those who bring that arguement to the table, you'd might as well just go ahead and start talking about the bands that influenced The Beatles themselves... or the musicians who inspired the musicians who inspired THEM. Yes, music builds off of itself but genres of music are so extenstive these days, it's almost quite difficult to classify certain styles. So many blurs are happening and genres crossing... I mean, I'm all for acknowledging greatness that came before current greatness but just as I feel regarding "best guitarist ever" type of discussions, it seems incredibly moot to select a "most influential."

I'll be so bold as to make the following statement: If any of you reading this can pick out one... no, wait, I'll even give you FIVE albums that you think are single-handed the most influential albums, then you need to expand your musical vocabulary. If all you're into is a particular genre, sure, there have been pioneers but here again, while a majority may rule an album to be "most influential," once can't help but question just how large that "majority" actually is and just how much music and how many bands these individuals have been exposed to.

Finally, spin this around in your noodle for awhile and see what you think: If musical networking existed back then as it does today, do you think "influential" would exist as it does today when looking back? There's always someone "better" or "greater" out there but the odds of discovery are stacked highly against the undiscovered. With it being as hard as it is today, just imagine how difficult it would've been back then! Once could also say that bands are flooding the music scene these days but just imagine what this is doing for music in terms of it expanding and growing! Again, if today's technology and means of communication existed back when The Beatles were around, just how "great" would they have been considered to be?

Food for thought there... but, yeah... seeing it as I've never been directly influenced by The Beatles and nor has hardly any of the bands I've truly been influenced by, I *personally* have a very difficult time agreeing with this album being regarded as one of the most influential albums ever, but that's just me. =) Again, I acknowledge it and respect it for being music and for apparently being highly influential to a large number of musicians.

-Stephen

Macleod,

Its all music press hype as usual. Regarded as the most influential album ever?? by who??. Music writers and critics?

Musical hype? Could it be that, for the only time in pop music history, a band really did live up to the 'hype' as bold innovators and leaders? If it's music writers and critics, not to mention musicians, that came to the conclusion that Sgt. Pepper is the most influential album then the answer to your question is yes. Who else should analyze the history of music? Paleontologists? Pretty much everything post 1966 can be traced back to Sgt. Pepper and Revolver - that's why they are considered so influential. I don't spend my time analyzing current music so I can trace it back to the Beatles but I do know that they led almost every innovation in pop music in the '60s.

No I actually meant they are crap. And many others think so too.

I'm a songwriter and I find the Beatles' work, especially on Sgt. Pepper, to be quite genius. Their music may sound simple to your ears but a lot went into writing such difficult songs. If you don't like the record then that's your opinion, but simply because you don't like something doesn't mean that it's 'crap'. Do you have any music of your own to back up such an outrageous statement? I suppose I shouldn't expect you to get the album or the songwriting involved since you're only in a cover band.

MrMikeV,

We'll see about that...

Phrailguitarist,

Your first two paragraphs are agreeable, so is the last one... However:

If musical networking existed back then as it does today, do you think "influential" would exist as it does today when looking back? There's always someone "better" or "greater" out there but the odds of discovery are stacked highly against the undiscovered. With it being as hard as it is today, just imagine how difficult it would've been back then! Once could also say that bands are flooding the music scene these days but just imagine what this is doing for music in terms of it expanding and growing! Again, if today's technology and means of communication existed back when The Beatles were around, just how "great" would they have been considered to be?

I'll argue that they still would have led the pack. They weren't considered anything special at first and then look what happened. Of course there's someone technically 'better' out there but this is pop music - not classical virtuosity. In fact, I'll argue that it would have been easier to be 'discovered' back then if one were so good. Their generation wasn't filled with many delusional people who think they should write music simply because they liked listening to it every now and then (my generation). It took practice and dedication to become something great - today people can sit in front of their computer and materialize a 'one man band' and think they're something worth listening to. Like you said, genres are all blurred and a lot of people are stuck on just one or two narrow sub-genres - people have different agendas and theirs is the most important. Why get together and make music with others if you can record things the way you want them in the comfort of your own home? If there were musical networking back then it would have only been between the same culture that has already recorded. It's harder to get signed today because there are SO many amateurs out there who want it as well. There are many more groups playing music today than there ever was before. With as many people being recorded as there are, where are the musical equivalents to John Lennon or Paul McCartney? I haven't heard them yet...

At least you respect the album for being music, that's more than 'Mcload' could afford.

just so we're on the same page that was a jovial insult davis...
I'll stop short of pointing out where it was supposed to gather it's insulting momentum from...