Review:

on 2011-02-21 CharlesMartel Said:

One of the most iconic albums of the sixties. A classic of the musical art which takes music in a direction it never before went. A defining moment in popular music culture. (And even, if you don't like this you know nothing about music). Yes, all these things have been uttered in praise of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". Is it any wonder then that this album gets so much attention paid to it?

I am sorry to have to say it, but it sounds terribly dated. It is also (heresy! heresy!) horribly overrated. I honestly do not see why everyone raves over this. It is self-indulgent, pompous and contains few songs of any great note. Its fame seems to rest on the fact that it marked a completely new direction for the Beatles, away from the chart pop of their previous albums and towards a more avant-garde, hippie style of music. No doubt many will argue it is a seminal piece of work as a result but I just cannot see that argument alone can elevate this to the status of greatness it seems to have achieved. Psychedelia may not be particularly my thing, but there are some psychedelic albums I can appreciate. Not this!

The lyrics of the album are often cited as being one of its great strengths. Well think about it. Most of these were written in a drug-fuelled haze. The imagery is unique because of that, but this is not springing from the mind of a genius - the only genius at work here is lysergic acid. "Lovely Rita" is simply awful. "When I'm Sixty Four" is terrible doggerel. "A Day in the Life" is a hopeless mess of unconnected images and themes, all derived from the effects of drugs. I have heard people go into rapture over "A Day in the Life" but I ask you, what is it really? The melody is weak; you can't dance or even tap your foot to it; and the lyrics are just nonsense. Yet this is held up as the acme of the Beatles songwriting. But if you sit down and read the lyrics, they contain nothing of any note.

Why this album gets the acclaim it does is beyond me. I am told that, musically, it is complex and the apparent simplicity of the songs belies their complex musical construction. Be that as it may, but I listen to music to appreciate it and enjoy it, not to marvel at whether it is a self-indulgent exercise in musical cleverness. Just because it is difficult to play is not a good enough reason to sit and go wow at the speakers every time it comes on. I honestly believe that if this had been done by anybody other than the Beatles it would have sunk into the footnotes of musical obscurity. Yet because it is the Beatles, we are all supposed to bow down before it and praise it as a unique work of musical genius.

Sorry, I do not buy into this hagiographic view of musical brilliance. I am also not going to just accept the oft-touted line that because the Beatles are the Beatles they are beyond criticism. No one is beyond criticism. I take an entirely subjective approach to musical appreciation (is there truly any other valid approach?). As a result, subjectively I find this awful. The style police who abound in various music circles will crucify me for this but who cares. I do not rate this. I have never rated it and I can't envisage a situation when I ever will. I am not going to continue fuelling the hype. Pull off the rose tinted spectacles and forget, for a moment, that this is the Beatles. Perhaps then will you and see this for the trite and self-indulgent banality that it is!
Rating: 3/10