In a few threads there's been some bashing of this quintessential rock album. I don't get it. What about Sgt. Pepper makes it not amazing? There might be 2-3 songs that aren't amazing on the second side, but the album is highly cohesive as a unit and the average song is very strong. It even has A Day in the Life!

So why all the hate? Is it just because Pepper was so incredibly acclaimed before this decade, that thee's backlash? Or is it the cool thing to do?

I think the acclaim for it has been more about what it has meant - the birth of the rock album,music as an art form. To be honest,I think a lot of this album now sounds like dated,pompous twaddle...

Sgt. Pepper's is my all time favorite album, and has been in my top 5 for many many years. The album as a whole works way better than any other Beatles album in terms of general cohesiveness, the album mixes many genres together like pop, rock, art rock, psychedelic, etc into one tight album, the songs are charmingly vaudevillian while retaining a psychedelic pop feeling to them. ...and of course there's always "A Day in the Life".

Sgt. Pepper's is an extremely cohesive collection of great pop songs with a bunch of experimentation.
How can you go wrong?

I can maybe understand the dated comment, but what specifically, sounds like pompous twaddle? Do you mean the string arrangements on She's Leaving Home, or the psychedellic sounds on Lucy and Mr. Kite?

i knew someone would start this topic. it certainly has copped some criticism recently.

i think people are just confusing overrated with bad. i'll agree that it's overrated, but i don't think there's anyone here who would call it bad. it's at least a top 100 album by anyone's standards. "a day in the life" is strong enough on its own to get any album into the top 100 and sgt peppers has a lot more than that. "getting better" in particular, is a fantastic track.

Within you,Without You,When I'm 64,Good Morning,Lovely Rita - none of that sounds particularly good to my ears. It's just silliness - and a lot of their stuff,I think,influenced as much bad stuff to follow as good stuff.

I agree with you on all of those songs except for Within You Without You. 64, Rita, and Good Morning weigh the album down, but the entire first side is excellent. I've always really enjoyed WYWY. I think the sitars and the percussion go together very well.

i think that can be said about any influential rock band, not just the beatles

I've heard it and absolutely hated it. I don't like The Beatles in general, and hearing this all the way through didn't change that. I wouldn't say it's "bad" per se, but it would never, ever come close to my personal top 100.

Not in mine either. Looking at it now,probably only Revolver would be - all their other 'classics' have too much filler on them...

What hurts Sgt Pepper for me is garbage TUNES "When I’m Sixty Four" and "Lovely Rita" if they only could have replaced it with "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane". They mastered the style of pop music with experimentation and helped rock music because of it. Honestly, "When I’m Sixty Four" and "Lovely Rita" are awful songs I have to be honest this is coming from a Beatles fan it hurts the flow of the album to me. Anyone knocking “She’s Leaving Home” is crazy in my opinion it’s almost as good as its sister song from Revolver “Eleanor Rigby”.

The biggest differences between "Sgt Pepper and Revolver is the songs are longer and are in cycle form. Much of Sgt Pepper was meant to be one long single for example "Sgt Pepper Reprise/ A Day in the Life". Revolver has "Tomorrow Never Knows" and Sgt Pepper has "A Day in the Life" BOTH extremely progressive songs. Both albums are similar in approach.

The Beatles (Revolver) 1966 Using the studio as a instrument for creating psychedelic effects via electronic/ reverse tape effects, sound distortion, influence of World Music, and avant-garde.

The Beatles (Sgt Pepper) 1967 Similar in style with more varied time signatures with songs that are in which the songs are in either song cycle form or songs linked together.

There must be something wrong with me because I like "When I'm Sixty-Four" much more than "Penny Lane". Anyone else with the same disease?

I personally don't think there's any real "fluff" or "filler" on Pepper. Yeah, "Lovely Rita" and "When I'm 64" are just simple pop songs, but they are both catchy, well-crafted and they look both backwards (with their simple format and vaudeville/music-hall sound) but also forwards (64's clarinet ensemble, not exactly a common element, and Rita's outro shows some experimentation), like any great pop song.

The most serious misstep for me is "Good Morning Good Morning," it's just a failed idea. It gets annoying to me, there's a little too much going on.

I like "Good Morning Good Morning" to me Ringo gets major credit for his drumming and negotiating the frequent time signature changes. Ok you got me on the outro of "Lovely Rita" but I never liked "When I'm 64".

Yeah, I would tend to say Ringo is underrated as a drummer (because he's, well, Ringo of course), but it doesn't redeem those annoying animal noises. He does much better on "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite." I don't think anyone could do a "whimsical circus drumbeat" better than that.