Music Banter - View Single Post - The Case For/ The Case Against..
View Single Post
Old 06-18-2008, 08:25 AM   #85 (permalink)
boo boo
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Case for:

Weither it be positive or negative theres hardly anything that hasn't been said about this album already, but I'll give it a shot.

Sgt Pepper is wrongly identified as a psychedelic album, and even if it is it dosen't sound like one. The idea behind it was that after giving up touring The Beatles were tired of being The Beatles and Paul came up with the concept of a fictional band and the new album would be based on that. Revolver had some pretty innovative sounds and it was a masterpiece of production, but this album really deserves to be looked upon as the groups magnum opus. It's really the first album that truly showcases the talents of every member, it's my favorite Beatles album and I love every song on it (except the pointless Sgt Peppers revival), this album overall is the sound of the band evolving in every way.

People who call this a ripoff of the American psychedelic scene are looking desperately for an excuse. This album took inspiration (which according to Rainard a band is never supposed to do) from the movement sure, but it dosen't sound like it, you're not gonna listen to it and confuse it with Jefferson Airplane, hell Pink Floyd took a lot more from the American psychedelic rock scene and yet they're supposed to be more original? Give me a break. The Beatles took inspiration from psychedelia like they did from many other genres that find their way into Sgt Peppers, they made something new out of it and and something that was not common in rock music at the time, making an album that went directly from a 5 minute Raga song with lyrics about Hinduism to a tribute to Music Hall, I wouldn't really call that playing it safe for a rock band back in 1967. This was mostly Paul's project, that certainly plays a part in peoples dislike for this album. I know this album is an easy target for the so called hipsters primarly because it contrasts with some purist ideals of what rock music should be, in other words it should never be mature, it should always be stupid. I hate people with this attidude, the idea that music NEEDS to be one thing is just foolish.

While I don't think this album should be pigeonholed into psychedelic rock, it is true that this album in a lot of ways defined the sentiments of the love generation, everyone hates hippies now so I guess thats why people feel this album is outdated.

Only it's not outdated, it was insanely ahead of it's time. Without Sgt Peppers I find it hard to imagine there would be as many artists setting trends and breaking genre barriers in the way The Beatles did with this album. This album I think was an essential influence on progressive rock. Yes, King Crimson and Genesis all started in the late 60s and it's actually pretty clear that they were trying to expand on the ideas The Beatles had for Sgt Pepper. And yeah, I think thats largely the reason people hate this album, it's very pomp, and it contains a lot of elements that would latter define the genre of prog that many people love to hate. All I have to say to that is love it or leave it.

Hating the album is one thing. But then people get really ridiculous and try to downplay it's impact, and some wish it was never made and that The Beatles should have never matured and gone beyond writing puppy love songs, but these people are wrong and can go screw themselves.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote