Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles - album review

When the recorded output of the Beatles is discussed, the 1967 album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is a touchy subject. Some rather lazily proclaim it as "the greatest album of all time", while others seek to distract attention from its (minor) shortcomings by emphasizing the record's cultural and social impact and importance.

I first heard "Sgt. Pepper" in its entirety about 25-30 years ago, when a member of my family purchased the vinyl version. I was somewhat underwhelmed, although admittedly my musical palate was woefully under-developed at that stage, and I had yet to appreciate the greatness of the Beatles in general. To my ears, it all seemed a little lacking in drama and "punch". In those days, anything which did not feature blazing guitar riffs and power chords I treated with a touch of disdain.

I re-appraised the album again in the mid-1990s, when the whole "Anthology" project re-ignited my interest in the Fab Four, and I explored their entire back catalogue. My assessment was more nuanced, and my by then more discerning ears were more receptive, but it still did not live up to the "the hype". In fairness, by that stage "the hype" was being counter-balanced by the surfeit of Beatles scholarship available, much of which placed "Sgt. Pepper" in its proper place, and tended to champion "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" instead. One is tempted to wonder whether that line of thinking itself has now become tired and dated.  Personally, these days I prefer "The White Album" and "Abbey Road", but that's another story!

One thing I would say is that "Sgt. Pepper" cleverly "tricks" people into thinking that it is better and more substantial than it really is. This is partially due to the lavish packaging, the "aura" of a concept and the astute sequencing of the tracks.

John Lennon was later dismissive of the notion that this was a concept album, pointing out that his own contributions were "autonomous" songs, not intended to nourish or realize any greater goal. Ringo Starr I think was nearer the mark in one of the "Anthology" videos when he implied that the group started out with the loose intention of making such a record, but then decided just to record songs. He did correctly observe, however, that the finished article retained some of the flavour of embracing some vague central theme. Lennon was accurate in his suggestion that people became convinced that there was some "concept" because the Beatles said so! The mesmeric power of the Beatles having its effect on public and press alike?  Was major criticism of the Beatles still something of a taboo in 1967?

The album exudes a polish and a charm which mask the deficiencies. A very "clean" sound is evident, partially resulting from the lesser role allotted to electric guitars. Paul McCartney I think has remarked that around that time he was striving for such a sound, perhaps inspired by the achievement of Brian Wilson on the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds". The music-hall flavour of much of the music here helped to nurture the Sgt. Pepper "myth". Other artists had already been experimenting with such styles, but their adoption by the Beatles gave them mainstream acceptance and credibility.

The opening sequence of songs ("Sgt. Pepper", "With A Little Help From My Friends", "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds") generates momentum, even if on closer inspection the material is unexceptional and relatively shallow. The momentum is not maintained, as the album then goes off on various tangents.

Of course, with "Friends" and "Lucy" we come to one of the main talking points which surrounds the work. What are these songs really about?  The Beatles were thought to take delight in teasing people by making songs open to certain interpretations, and may have enjoyed poking fun at those in the media and elsewhere who had a tendency to over-intellectualize rock music. One of the strengths of the Lennon-McCartney stable was its capacity to make the compositions work on more than one level.

Some of these numbers have acquired a reputation and popularity somewhat out of proportion to their artistic merit. They might not have merited much attention if they had been performed by Fred Bloggs. In the event, because they were "Beatle songs", minute scrutiny, and a plethora of cover versions, were sure to follow.

Many of the songs on this LP lack the incisiveness of other parts of the Beatles' discography, and I would also dispute the assertion that "Sgt. Pepper" represented the apotheosis of the Swinging Sixties. That accolade belongs, in Beatles terms anyway, to "Revolver".  Did the 1967 record, together with the double A-side single "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane", instead signify a watershed of sorts, before the Sixties went in another direction entirely?

The relative roles and contributions of the individual Beatles bear close examination. It is commonly regarded as a "McCartney album", and it's tempting to regard this as the point at which Paul, in tandem with George Martin, began to assume something of an ascendancy. Yes, he did come up with the "concept", and by some measurements contributes more than the others, but to say that he dominates the record is erroneous. The album's piece-de-resistance was largely the brainchild of his partner/rival. Lennon was mildly dismissive about "Sgt. Pepper" in later years, ironic indeed when one considers "A Day In The Life". Maybe he was resentful at how the project came to be perceived as a Paul vehicle, or perhaps his attitude reflected tensions which were just beginning to emerge within the group.

George Harrison is mostly a peripheral figure on this particular record, a blip in the steadily burgeoning influence which he had been enjoying within the Beatles. Even his song "Within You, Without You" is eclipsed by "Love You To" from the previous year. It has been hinted that George's blossoming interests outside the band contributed to this temporary plateau in his contribution.

"A Day In The Life" can be difficult to get one's teeth into unless the listener concentrates on what John Lennon is trying to say, and absorbs the symbolism of the arrangements. Once these things are accomplished, its glories become clear. Paul's middle section adds to the effect, and prevents the piece from becoming over-earnest, but as an example of Lennon/McCartney "syncretism" its importance has arguably been a touch exaggerated. One thing I would contend is that "A Day In The Life" is another example of how the Beatles (and their producer) possessed some intangible musical "sixth sense", which enabled them to determine what worked and what didn't.

"Sgt. Pepper" is pleasing and distinctive in its utilization of unconventional sounds, these primarily extracted from conventional instruments. Keyboards (and occasionally guitars) are made to emit sounds which do not outwardly resemble those traditionally associated with them. This quality the album shares with "Pet Sounds", and is also symptomatic of the time and care which the boys were able to lavish on their creation.

The songs forming the heart of the album ("Getting Better", "When I'm Sixty Four", "Lovely Rita" and "Good Morning Good Morning") are all beautifully crafted, and because of the band's humour and joie de vivre, immensely likeable. However, they fall short of genius in their own right as individual pieces. The album's supporters will point to the part these tracks play in making up the "Sgt. Pepper" mosaic, the big picture which makes it an "album" in the truest sense of that term.

"She's Leaving Home" appears to polarize opinion, amongst the critics at least. There is a fine line between capturing a mood perfectly and descending into over-sentimentality, and a few people have tentatively insinuated that the line was crossed by this number. I adopt a middle view, and tend to regard it as a cousin of "Eleanor Rigby". As a take on inter-generational tension and strife it is less overtly strident and subversive, but more affecting and poignant, than most of what was being written on the subject by others at the time.

So how do we judge "Sgt. Pepper", leaving aside personal tastes?  It signalled a further intensification of rock's elevation to that of an art-form worthy of cerebral discussion, and cemented the Beatles' place in the vanguard of that process. The musical merits of the record will continue to be debated so long as there is air to breathe, but in pop-cultural terms it might be the single achievement for which they will be best remembered.

Abbey Road - The Beatles - album review

By the time that recording sessions commenced for the Abbey Road album in 1969, the writing was on the wall as far as any future for the Beatles as a continuing entity was concerned.  It is therefore common for the work released later that year to be lauded as a fitting and poignant parting shot (Let It Be was released later, but most of it was recorded in the early months of 1969).  So, from the perspective of over four decades later, were the plaudits truly warranted, or just a case of respectful wishful thinking?

A "bittersweet" but defiant quality runs through Abbey Road, although whether this has been accrued with the passing of time is open to debate.  I am in no real position to adjudicate, as the album was released shortly before I was born!

Certain aspects make this LP stand out from other albums released by the Fab Four.  The production and sound quality are markedly more lavish and "polished" than their other works.  They were now gaining access to more advanced recording technology.  Whether this makes the album sound "better" is a matter of taste, and the sheen possessed by these recordings could give rise to an accusation that the sound is a touch clinical. In fairness to the Beatles, they did not hide behind their newly acquired gizmos and equipment, and instead relied primarily on their trademark melodic inventiveness and imagination and songwriting prowess.

The album also witnessed the true flowering of George Harrison as a songwriter, and his two songs, "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun", have been the most enduring of the tracks on the listing. The clarity and sincerity of Harrison's writing here contrasts with the contributions of both Lennon and McCartney which, whilst substantial and important to the album's overall appeal, are beginning to diverge and possibly presage their respective solo careers to come.

Notwithstanding the reverence expressed for Abbey Road, there is some undoubted filler, although this being the Beatles it is interesting and entertaining filler!  It is a moot point whether the group members were holding some stronger material back for impending solo projects.  We know from the Anthology 3 album that some impressive songs were floating around circa 1969.

Even much of the fabled "medley" on side 2 of the vinyl album could justly described as "filler", but the group, and in particular McCartney and George Martin, expertly pull together this mixture of minor gems, vignettes and fragments, and fuse it into something vibrant, moving and enthralling.  A case of the whole being greater than the sum of the individual parts...

Partly because of the efficacy of the "medley", and also because of the diversity and quality of the other material, Abbey Road works better as an "album" in the truest sense than most of the Beatles' other work. Not quite as enigmatic and disparate as "The White Album", but much warmer and compact.  The musical ingenuity conquers all, together with the group's uncanny knack of knowing what to do, when and how, rarely if ever sounding self-indulgent or pretentious.

Abbey Road represents a brave, unapologetic and proud farewell, if it can be accurately described as a "farewell".  Bittersweet in tone, but captivating and, and one of those albums which demands to be listened to      from start to finish, in order for the full effect to be absorbed.  For this listener at least, there is never the temptation to skip tracks...

Throughout the record, there are hints and indications of what direction the Beatles would have travelled in musically, had they remained together during the 1970s.  Multi-tracked vocals and guitars, increasing use of synthesizers, more elaborate and ambitious arrangements, and of course the blossoming input of George Harrison.

On a sonic level, Ringo Starr's drumming is a revelation, sounding confident, idiosyncratic and "three dimensional".  Another hallmark of the album is the "trebly" and chiming guitar sound.  Both of these elements were doubtless accentuated by the better recording technology at the band's disposal, but as common threads they help to hold the record together.

I try not to categorise or rank Beatles albums in particular, because of the leap in musical sophistication and philosophical outlook which they made in such a short time during the 1960s, but Abbey Road is without doubt one of their most enjoyable and cohesive creations.

The Beatles

When I first began listening to the music of The Beatles seriously, in the mid-1990s, I vaguely subscribed to the notion that "everyone loves The Beatles".  However, I soon realised that the Fab Four have their share of detractors and nay-sayers, and equally those who maintain that they are beyond criticism.

So, what are the charges most often levelled against The Beatles, and to what degree do they have some foundation?

Perhaps the most common  complaint is that they were "in the right place at the right time", and that they were no more deserving than numerous other British (and American) bands of the day. Well, they were certainly helped by circumstance, and by factors largely outside of their control. Equally, we will never know how other artists would have reacted and developed in a similar situation.

It is also difficult to deny that The Beatles had the talent, ambition and nous to capitalise on their breakthrough. Subsequent events indicate persuasively that the hype was warranted, and they could not be accused of squandering their opportunities, or lapsing into complacency.

In addition, there was ample room for other acts to flourish, so The Beatles were not really guilty of crowding out or hampering the careers of others. On the contrary, their own success helped to pave the way for their contemporaries.

Critics also point out the lack of technical musical virtuosity within The Beatles. Although a case can be made for Paul McCartney as a multi-instrumentalist,this is largely fair comment. However, such analyses miss the point. The appeal of The Beatles had little to do with conventional musical proficiency,and related more to expression,imagination, ideas and inspiration.

Working within their own limitations, and that of the recording technology of the time, often proved advantageous. One of the striking things about the Beatles' career is how seldom they descended into pretentiousness or self-indulgence. Their sense of quality control was impeccable, and they had very keen "antennae", being able to assess what worked and what didn't.

So were The Beatles necessarily doing anything musically that their fellow groups were not?  In truth, probably not. It was their unique non-musical attributes, including their social significance, which set them apart. To be fair to them,they rarely to my knowledge claimed to be particularly great musical innovators, and respected the work of other artists. In the spirit of the Sixties, the accent was on friendly competition and the exchange of ideas. This was evident in the transatlantic "communication" between the Fab Four and the likes of Bob Dylan,the Byrds and Brian Wilson.

And what of the role of producer George Martin?  Some have opined that he was the real "genius" behind The Beatles. In the early days, he was undoubtedly very important, but before long the band members, especially McCartney and John Lennon were beginning to dictate the agenda. They needed Martin to help them realise their artistic visions, and he also proved to be a valuable sounding-board for ideas. In interviews over the years, the producer himself has sought to slightly downplay his own importance.

Notwithstanding the above, it would be a mistake to under-estimate George Martin's contribution to the Beatles' success. Would the group have thrived similarly with a different producer, and achieved the same chemistry?  We will never know...

Much debate has also centred on the merits, or otherwise, of The Beatles as a live band. In the Hamburg and Cavern days they are reputed to have been a tight and dynamic outfit, although relatively little recorded evidence exists. From what I have seen and heard, they were still good concert performers during the early stages of "Beatlemania".

From 1964 onwards,audience hysteria (and screams), the primitive nature of 1960s amplification and a punishing schedule began to take their toll. The concerts became less about quality of performance, and more about a sense of "event" and spectacle. Bad habits set in, and in any event the band were already devoting their energies more and more to songwriting and recording.

In the right circumstances, The Beatles as a live band could still cut the mustard, as glimpsed in the famous rooftop performance in the film Let It Be. It would have been fascinating, if they had remained together, to see the Beatles in concert during the 1970s, with more controlled environments and better sound equipment. Alas, it was not to be....

Taste is largely subjective, but objectively one can have respect for the craftsmanship and influence of a group. Since I went through my original "Beatles phase", I have been able to put their music into perspective. Certainly, some of their work can seem tame when set against the elaborate and ambitious rock music of the 1970s, with its better sound quality. 

I have listened to lots of music in the rock/pop genres, much of it technically complex and emotionally affecting, but much of it struggles to match the optimism and life-affirming qualities of the Beatles' body of work.

The debate will no doubt go on as long as music is written and played....