Re: Sgt. Pepper

[Pat Zumstein <pat.zumstein@bluewin.ch>]

zqc53@TTACS.TTU.EDU wrote:
> Hate to say this, but I feel Sgt. Pepper
> was crap.  Yeah, it sounds nice,
> but when you get down to it, the sounds used on the record
> were nice, but
> not original,
I strongly object to this. This is not meant to be offensive
(or boring), and if it is I apologize. I just would like some time to defend
the beatles bacause apart from GG they are my favourite artists

I have spent most of my life listening to the beatles and I must say that the beatles
were anything else but "not original". Just think of the use of the animal sounds between
"reprise" and "a day in the life" or other gimmicks like recording a guitar solo backwards. Gimmicks allright, but they were not trained musicans, they didn'd knew what they were doing and therefore had a lot more freedom to do what they wanted..
The beatles, like GG, used the studio as an instrument. Even today you won't find that many
musicians who consider their studios as "instruments". Good music doesn't nesseceraly has something to
with originality. I know this sounds corny, but I reckon that it is about having talent, heart and soul. And about
having a good time. And a bit of magic, too

> and the lyrics were quite inane and
> somewhat vapid.
Well, maybe, but on the other hand a track like "when I'm
64" is not about the joys of being old.
It's a satirical, if not cynical (if not horrible) vision
af a twentysomething of what life will be like as a senior citizen.......
> Heck,if you look hard enough, you'll
> see that the beatles themselves weren't
> really all that up on saying it was there best, and in
> fact, Paul said in
> 1987 that it was one of their worst-selling records,
> compared to others
Nah. Maybe it wasn't their best but it's one of their best-sellers.
And it's Macca's favourite beatles album
> I think that because of their "greatness",
> no matter what they did would
> have been heralded as "great."  Look at the Rolling
> Stones, who did
> basically the same thing, at around the same time, and
> who sounded similar
> in style (if not in sound quality)...they were ripped
> apart in the press!
Again, no offence intended, but I find this comment rather
hilarious. The Stones did "not" do the same
thing. They had a few good tunes in those days but they
just din't have enough "talent" or "magic"
> and had the press been kind to the
> Beach Boys, then you would be saying
> this about Pet Sounds, which, to be honest, blows Sgt.
> Pepper out of the
> water...compare the two, and you'll see.  They have
> the
> brass/strings/orchestra, like the beatles, but the beatles
> could never
> come close to their harmonies.
Pet Sounds is a very, very,  very good record. It took
me a long time to understand it. Unfortunelty Brian Wilson has't done anything
of interest since then. Macca claims that this is one of his favourite
albums and I agree with him
The lyrics are quite thought-provoking......
> All we are saying is give Pet Sounds
> a Chance!
> Joseph
Yep. And if anyone is interested: Capitol Records has released
a brilliant box set called "Pet Sounds Sessions"
I just wonder when Sony is  going to release something
similar about Glenn Gould.

The defense has closed. Now back to the regular programme........

Pat