Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In this episode, Robert and Richard further the discussion of Revolver, comparing it with the more acclaimed work that followed. Songs include “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and “When I’m 64.”
Find Richard’s books here.
Find Robert’s books here.
Robert, I read and enjoyed your Revolver book. I’ve long felt Peppers was overrated. It sounds dated to me-it perfectly captures the ’67 Summer of Love- but it seems stuck there now. Revolver and Rubber Soul seem, these days, to have lasted much longer(and, as I think you argue,were much more revolutionary for their time). The same I would argue for The originally underrated White Album. I’m in fact, currently writing my own Beatles book and will explore these things and others from, perhaps,different angles than most Beatles books. In meanwhile, you and fans are welcome to read my blog about White Album, Rubber Soul, etc.: “THE BEATLES’ WHITE ALBUM: AHEAD OF IT’S TIME.” https://beatlely.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/the-beatles-white-album-revisited-ahead-of-its-time/
👍
Robert, I read and enjoyed your Revolver book. I’ve long felt Peppers was overrated. It sounds dated to me-it perfectly captures the ’67 Summer of Love- but it seems stuck there now. Revolver and Rubber Soul seem, these days, to have lasted much longer(and, as I think you argue,were much more revolutionary for their time). The same I would argue for The originally underrated White Album. I’m in fact, currently writing my own Beatles book and will explore these things and others from, perhaps,different angles than most Beatles books. In meanwhile, you and fans are welcome to read my blog about White Album, Rubber Soul, etc.: “THE BEATLES’ WHITE ALBUM: AHEAD OF IT’S TIME.” https://beatlely.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/the-beatles-white-album-revisited-ahead-of-its-time/
👍
The paradox of Pepper which I think SATB missed is that it is BOTH firmly rooted in its place and time (local) AND eternal and universal (cosmic, really). It speaks to all people in all places in a way that no other Beatles record does. It speaks to yearning for transcendence and escape from the quotidian . . . of course there are similarly transcendent tracks on other Beatles records . . . but my point simply is that the fact that is WAS SO GROUNDED IN THE MOMENT is precisely what makes it timeless. That’s a hallmark of great art . . . sublime and seamless. Comments RB and RR?
Sgt Pepper was entirely overrated. It had no identity. First it was about childhood memories, (Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Gettin Better) then an imaginary band (Sgt Pepper and Reprise, With A Little Help From my Friends) then filler. Slick Production but missing crucial creative involment from Lennon and Harrison. the result…Great beginning, but after the fantastic four song opening, it died. Fixing a whole is weak, She’s Leaving home is m issing something, Mr. Kite while musically entriging never catches on, With you and Without you is not a side 2 opener and is completley out of place more than any other Harrison song on an album. When I’m 64 is an old song revived and was not written during this time period. Most people probably skip from Getting Better to either When I’m 64 or Lovely Rita, a very catchy tune that should have been the first track. Good MOrning though interesting in arrangement and key time changes, again, never gets off the ground. The reprise is where we pick up after Lovely rita and prepare for the brilliant collaborative finale. 6 songs does not make a masterpiece. REvolver catches all Beatles at the height of their game as a forerunner to Abby Road. Like Abby Road, the Beatles knew the end was coming. Revolver captured them at their height before it started to fall apart much as Abby road captured the Beatles in their final moment. There is no comparison…Revolver will go down as the greatest Beatles album…period.
Here’s my issue with Pepper, Rick – I think it is SO tricked out with presentation and production that it’s hard not to conclude that this series of thematically-unrelated songs were deliberately tarted up with gloss to mask this fact. There is a decided lack of emotional depth – especially with Paul’s songs here as contrasted with his compositions on Revolver – that reduces the very timelessness that you speak of; they lack the power to move people that songs like “Fo No One,” “Eleanor Rigby” and “Here, There and Everywhere” did so effortlessly. “She’s Leaving Home” and “Fixing A Hole” I see as attempting to reach for some kind of emotional pull, but the former song is so suffocated with tasteless strings that scream “Listen and weep!” that it just, IMO, misses the mark – a real shame, considering the thematic sophistication (attempting to present the POV of both generational sides, though “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy” must rank as one of the greatest inanities ever uttered on a Beatles record).
To re-state the opinion voiced on the show, “You had to be there” in terms of experiencing the real impact of Sgt. Pepper. If you weren’t, it’s really difficult for a listener of later years to get past the entire “Summer of Love as historic event” feel of the whole thing – maybe it speaks to the shallowness of younger fans; or, it can be read as the critical appraisal of those who recognize silly self-consciousness when they see it. It’s that very calculation vs. inspiration between Pepper and Revolver that I find self-evident, but ultimately, it’s all subjective, isn’t it?
The paradox of Pepper which I think SATB missed is that it is BOTH firmly rooted in its place and time (local) AND eternal and universal (cosmic, really). It speaks to all people in all places in a way that no other Beatles record does. It speaks to yearning for transcendence and escape from the quotidian . . . of course there are similarly transcendent tracks on other Beatles records . . . but my point simply is that the fact that is WAS SO GROUNDED IN THE MOMENT is precisely what makes it timeless. That’s a hallmark of great art . . . sublime and seamless. Comments RB and RR?
Sgt Pepper was entirely overrated. It had no identity. First it was about childhood memories, (Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Gettin Better) then an imaginary band (Sgt Pepper and Reprise, With A Little Help From my Friends) then filler. Slick Production but missing crucial creative involment from Lennon and Harrison. the result…Great beginning, but after the fantastic four song opening, it died. Fixing a whole is weak, She’s Leaving home is m issing something, Mr. Kite while musically entriging never catches on, With you and Without you is not a side 2 opener and is completley out of place more than any other Harrison song on an album. When I’m 64 is an old song revived and was not written during this time period. Most people probably skip from Getting Better to either When I’m 64 or Lovely Rita, a very catchy tune that should have been the first track. Good MOrning though interesting in arrangement and key time changes, again, never gets off the ground. The reprise is where we pick up after Lovely rita and prepare for the brilliant collaborative finale. 6 songs does not make a masterpiece. REvolver catches all Beatles at the height of their game as a forerunner to Abby Road. Like Abby Road, the Beatles knew the end was coming. Revolver captured them at their height before it started to fall apart much as Abby road captured the Beatles in their final moment. There is no comparison…Revolver will go down as the greatest Beatles album…period.
Here’s my issue with Pepper, Rick – I think it is SO tricked out with presentation and production that it’s hard not to conclude that this series of thematically-unrelated songs were deliberately tarted up with gloss to mask this fact. There is a decided lack of emotional depth – especially with Paul’s songs here as contrasted with his compositions on Revolver – that reduces the very timelessness that you speak of; they lack the power to move people that songs like “Fo No One,” “Eleanor Rigby” and “Here, There and Everywhere” did so effortlessly. “She’s Leaving Home” and “Fixing A Hole” I see as attempting to reach for some kind of emotional pull, but the former song is so suffocated with tasteless strings that scream “Listen and weep!” that it just, IMO, misses the mark – a real shame, considering the thematic sophistication (attempting to present the POV of both generational sides, though “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy” must rank as one of the greatest inanities ever uttered on a Beatles record).
To re-state the opinion voiced on the show, “You had to be there” in terms of experiencing the real impact of Sgt. Pepper. If you weren’t, it’s really difficult for a listener of later years to get past the entire “Summer of Love as historic event” feel of the whole thing – maybe it speaks to the shallowness of younger fans; or, it can be read as the critical appraisal of those who recognize silly self-consciousness when they see it. It’s that very calculation vs. inspiration between Pepper and Revolver that I find self-evident, but ultimately, it’s all subjective, isn’t it?
Unless you’re tied to the “Summer of Love” and what it’s taken to represent, there’s no question that Revolver is the better album. Not a single Paul composition on Pepper meets the standard of any one of his numbers on Revolver. The same is true of John’s contributions, with the exception of “A Day in the Life.” If you were to drop the weak Lonely Hearts Club Band concept and supplant tracks on Pepper with songs that ended up on Magical Mystery Tour, you’d have a worthy follow-up at least. I’d like to see each of your proposed album-length sequences along these lines (the concept is an obvious hindrance). And, Richard, you can say it: Plastic Ono Band is superior to Pepper.
We did do something like that in the Second Guessing The Beatles #2 show, James; although we kept the album’s identity and didn’t jettison the SPLHCB theme. But that’s a really good point: what a great album one could put together with the best of Mystery Tour, Pepper and 1967 songs like “It’s All Too Much”!
I’d love to hear an episode in which both of you put together your sequences for a merged Pepper/Mystery Tour with the SPLHCB theme jettisoned. I hope you’ll consider it. Thanks.
Unless you’re tied to the “Summer of Love” and what it’s taken to represent, there’s no question that Revolver is the better album. Not a single Paul composition on Pepper meets the standard of any one of his numbers on Revolver. The same is true of John’s contributions, with the exception of “A Day in the Life.” If you were to drop the weak Lonely Hearts Club Band concept and supplant tracks on Pepper with songs that ended up on Magical Mystery Tour, you’d have a worthy follow-up at least. I’d like to see each of your proposed album-length sequences along these lines (the concept is an obvious hindrance). And, Richard, you can say it: Plastic Ono Band is superior to Pepper.
We did do something like that in the Second Guessing The Beatles #2 show, James; although we kept the album’s identity and didn’t jettison the SPLHCB theme. But that’s a really good point: what a great album one could put together with the best of Mystery Tour, Pepper and 1967 songs like “It’s All Too Much”!
I’d love to hear an episode in which both of you put together your sequences for a merged Pepper/Mystery Tour with the SPLHCB theme jettisoned. I hope you’ll consider it. Thanks.
Nice job as usual. What s the story on tomorrow never knows different guitar solo. Thanks Dennis
That’s a mix with the same solo turned front to back, instead of back to front, as in the finished mix.
Nice job as usual. What s the story on tomorrow never knows different guitar solo. Thanks Dennis
That’s a mix with the same solo turned front to back, instead of back to front, as in the finished mix.
Where you suggesting that the Pepper should have come out as one unite medley?
As much as I know that was actually the idea the band had in mind, it was the record company against it.
Where you suggesting that the Pepper should have come out as one unite medley?
As much as I know that was actually the idea the band had in mind, it was the record company against it.
Do you consider Magical Mystery Tour more of a concept album than Sgt Pepper? Do you talk more about Magical Mystery Tour specifically in any other episodes?
Great episode!
Do you consider Magical Mystery Tour more of a concept album than Sgt Pepper? Do you talk more about Magical Mystery Tour specifically in any other episodes?
Great episode!
It has become gospel now to consider Revolver to be superior to Pepper, and, to my ears, song-for-song, Revolver just holds up better. Maybe I lack some of the cultural context – having been born the year Pepper was released, I surely can’t fully appreciate what it meant at the time. Certainly when I began to collect Beatles albums as a kid, I fell in line with the critical mantra of the moment, which was that Pepper was their masterpiece. It did, after all, suggest that an album could be more than just a collection of unrelated songs, though obviously the “thread” that holds the album together is rather thin or even non-existent. And by way of comparison, I had only the U.S. version of Revolver to compare and, well, that’s no contest at all. When the truncated US revolver was finally replaced by the UK (full) Revolver, an actual basis of comparison arose. And, again, song for song and as a true group effort, Revolver triumphs. None of this is intended to denigrate Pepper – it is a great achievement of production and ambition. But the songwriting sometimes feels lackluster and George is notably missing in action. Had Only a Northern Song and All Too Much made the cut along with Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane, had George Martin been given the opportunity to arrange “She’s Leaving Home,” had a little more time been devoted to developing a true concept and threading it through the tunes, Sgt. Pepper might be looked on today as a true masterpiece rather than a great period piece.
It has become gospel now to consider Revolver to be superior to Pepper, and, to my ears, song-for-song, Revolver just holds up better. Maybe I lack some of the cultural context – having been born the year Pepper was released, I surely can’t fully appreciate what it meant at the time. Certainly when I began to collect Beatles albums as a kid, I fell in line with the critical mantra of the moment, which was that Pepper was their masterpiece. It did, after all, suggest that an album could be more than just a collection of unrelated songs, though obviously the “thread” that holds the album together is rather thin or even non-existent. And by way of comparison, I had only the U.S. version of Revolver to compare and, well, that’s no contest at all. When the truncated US revolver was finally replaced by the UK (full) Revolver, an actual basis of comparison arose. And, again, song for song and as a true group effort, Revolver triumphs. None of this is intended to denigrate Pepper – it is a great achievement of production and ambition. But the songwriting sometimes feels lackluster and George is notably missing in action. Had Only a Northern Song and All Too Much made the cut along with Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane, had George Martin been given the opportunity to arrange “She’s Leaving Home,” had a little more time been devoted to developing a true concept and threading it through the tunes, Sgt. Pepper might be looked on today as a true masterpiece rather than a great period piece.
Being in the Lewis Carroll Society, I found it interesting that Robert and Richard were debating the merits of the lyrics to “I Am the Walrus” and “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” both songs inspired by Lewis Carroll.
With “Lucy,” Lennon creates an easy-going, relaxing lyric and with “Walrus,” he attempts the opposite, creating a harsher, staccato, attacking lyric. He aptly uses anapest meter (or dactylic, depending on how you look at it) to create that flow in “Lucy,” a beat every third syllable. This meter is especially apt owing to the flow of the water mentioned in the first line, composers often use a triple rhythm to express rolling water.
In “Walrus,” he uses iambic meter (for the most part), a beat every second syllable. This helps him create a lyric that is more angry, punctuated, something anapest meter wouldn’t do as well. “EXpert Texpert CHOKing SMOKers / DON’T you THINK the JOKer LAUGHS at YOU?” Having two unaccented syllables between beats would ruin the effect.
Of course, both songs are going for imagery more than anything else we could evaluate them on, and so, as far as the lyrics go, we should judge them on that. “Walrus” is obviously richer in imagery but it does this by being more punctuated and having many more words or concepts thrown into the pie. In short, it is a different animal than “Lucy,” so to speak, and it is impossible to fairly compare them. The question is, as Richard was saying, is “Lucy” inherently weak, regardless of “Walrus.” I never thought it was before and see nothing at all weak about it now. It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to accomplish, in my view. Lennon wanted, no doubt, to create a child-like song with influences from an old Victorian book he admired but with new 60s sensibilities he was swept up in at the time. I think it came out pretty well.
I do like something lyrically about “Lucy,” I should mention. I find it interesting how he foregoes the rhyme in the second half of the verse sections and suddenly comes in with the abrupt line “And she’s gone” or “And you’re gone.” This is a Jimmy Webb trick, using a short last line. But in this case, the missing rhyme and the shortness works quite well with the meaning. He doesn’t have to use the word “suddenly,” the form supplies it or implies it. She softly and suddenly vanished away.
By the way, I am giving a speech on Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter” in October and would like to include an audio clip of Lennon’s playboy interview where he talks about the poem, especially where he sings “I am the Carpenter.” Does that exist out there somewhere?
Sorry for the long post, thanks,
Matt
Being in the Lewis Carroll Society, I found it interesting that Robert and Richard were debating the merits of the lyrics to “I Am the Walrus” and “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” both songs inspired by Lewis Carroll.
With “Lucy,” Lennon creates an easy-going, relaxing lyric and with “Walrus,” he attempts the opposite, creating a harsher, staccato, attacking lyric. He aptly uses anapest meter (or dactylic, depending on how you look at it) to create that flow in “Lucy,” a beat every third syllable. This meter is especially apt owing to the flow of the water mentioned in the first line, composers often use a triple rhythm to express rolling water.
In “Walrus,” he uses iambic meter (for the most part), a beat every second syllable. This helps him create a lyric that is more angry, punctuated, something anapest meter wouldn’t do as well. “EXpert Texpert CHOKing SMOKers / DON’T you THINK the JOKer LAUGHS at YOU?” Having two unaccented syllables between beats would ruin the effect.
Of course, both songs are going for imagery more than anything else we could evaluate them on, and so, as far as the lyrics go, we should judge them on that. “Walrus” is obviously richer in imagery but it does this by being more punctuated and having many more words or concepts thrown into the pie. In short, it is a different animal than “Lucy,” so to speak, and it is impossible to fairly compare them. The question is, as Richard was saying, is “Lucy” inherently weak, regardless of “Walrus.” I never thought it was before and see nothing at all weak about it now. It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to accomplish, in my view. Lennon wanted, no doubt, to create a child-like song with influences from an old Victorian book he admired but with new 60s sensibilities he was swept up in at the time. I think it came out pretty well.
I do like something lyrically about “Lucy,” I should mention. I find it interesting how he foregoes the rhyme in the second half of the verse sections and suddenly comes in with the abrupt line “And she’s gone” or “And you’re gone.” This is a Jimmy Webb trick, using a short last line. But in this case, the missing rhyme and the shortness works quite well with the meaning. He doesn’t have to use the word “suddenly,” the form supplies it or implies it. She softly and suddenly vanished away.
By the way, I am giving a speech on Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter” in October and would like to include an audio clip of Lennon’s playboy interview where he talks about the poem, especially where he sings “I am the Carpenter.” Does that exist out there somewhere?
Sorry for the long post, thanks,
Matt
I love “Revolver” but as I have mentioned to Robert at the Fest, I feel “Rubber Soul” was such a jump for the Fabs too. I still feel Pepper is the meidan by which all other Beatles group albums are measured. Next summer will probably put the album back in the spotlight. Also Richard, Paul has done exceptional music since 1970-embrace it 🙂
I love “Revolver” but as I have mentioned to Robert at the Fest, I feel “Rubber Soul” was such a jump for the Fabs too. I still feel Pepper is the meidan by which all other Beatles group albums are measured. Next summer will probably put the album back in the spotlight. Also Richard, Paul has done exceptional music since 1970-embrace it 🙂
Sgt pepper was too rushed and should have been a double lp. It should have been called Magical Mystery Tour by Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band with the songs from MMT incorporated into it, also Tomorrow Never Knows, with some of the songs from the Yellow Submarine album. In other words, all the psychedelic ’67 material to create an extravaganza type of project, instead of cutting everything up in three projects. Had this been done, it would have blown people’s minds. Of course, they didn’t have the foresight to do that, but it would have been explosive. I’ve always thought this, and though I’m late to chime in and no one will read this probably, just thought I’d add my two cents, for what it’s worth… see ya.
Sgt pepper was too rushed and should have been a double lp. It should have been called Magical Mystery Tour by Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band with the songs from MMT incorporated into it, also Tomorrow Never Knows, with some of the songs from the Yellow Submarine album. In other words, all the psychedelic ’67 material to create an extravaganza type of project, instead of cutting everything up in three projects. Had this been done, it would have blown people’s minds. Of course, they didn’t have the foresight to do that, but it would have been explosive. I’ve always thought this, and though I’m late to chime in and no one will read this probably, just thought I’d add my two cents, for what it’s worth… see ya.
I must use this opportunity to say that “She’s Leaving Home” is home to what may be the most ridiculous line in the Beatles’ canon: “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy…” Seriously? Fun? It’s the one thing that money can ABSOLUTELY buy! I can’t believe they went with it. Despite it, I do love the Pepper album, but Revolver just blows me away every time.
Interesting observation, though I never had a problem with the line.
Of course, life with money can be fun. However, I interpret the song to be about a young lady who is running away from the conventional sophisticated scene of lower-upper class Mantovani fans that are indicative of post war parents and into the summer of love. I guess the song is about the relationship the girl is having with a guy that her parents wouldn’t approve of, a debutante named Lucy escaping the diamond tiaras and settling for love of a working stiff. I do think though, that tonally the song gently mocks the old order, subverting the old ballads so it fits spy-like into Day-Glo.
For many kids in those days, running to the Haight, dropping acid and blowing roadies (men in the motor trade as well as show-business) was the way to ‘fun’. Wealthy dilettantes don’t want to be found in the slums as they play. Money can be a trap too… A gilded cage, but where you have to look the part and act a certain way to mingle with the other wealthy inheritors. I would guess that The Beatles themselves could have felt that way. Normal blokes made into gods where their every whim could be catered for, but often in the full glare of a flashbulb, in a lens. I imagine that when they quit touring it was because even though they knew financially it was a risk, that it just wan’t fun being screamed at for twenty minutes just for the quids.
I may be reading too much into what is essentially a backing vocal, but we all have our interpretations of the music and that is what makes the band both timeless and universal.
I read a blog once where ‘fun is the one thing that money can’t buy’ was assumed to relate to penis size. I am pretty sure someone declared that ‘the man from the motor trade’ was an abortionist. I like my own notion better and also believe that with their level of craftmanship and curiosity at the time it would have been discussed in depth, not simply left because it fits. If they put a line like that into such an elegant track, there was a belief that although it wasn’t always true, it was true for that story. Peace.
It’s crucial to the meaning of John’s lines that he is singing the parts of the parents.
“We gave her most of our lives.”
“We struggled hard all our lives to get by.”
John’s lines are the parents expressing their total confusion that their daughter found her life with them empty. The “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy” line,shows us that the two have missed the point: of course fun can be bought!
I must use this opportunity to say that “She’s Leaving Home” is home to what may be the most ridiculous line in the Beatles’ canon: “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy…” Seriously? Fun? It’s the one thing that money can ABSOLUTELY buy! I can’t believe they went with it. Despite it, I do love the Pepper album, but Revolver just blows me away every time.
Interesting observation, though I never had a problem with the line.
Of course, life with money can be fun. However, I interpret the song to be about a young lady who is running away from the conventional sophisticated scene of lower-upper class Mantovani fans that are indicative of post war parents and into the summer of love. I guess the song is about the relationship the girl is having with a guy that her parents wouldn’t approve of, a debutante named Lucy escaping the diamond tiaras and settling for love of a working stiff. I do think though, that tonally the song gently mocks the old order, subverting the old ballads so it fits spy-like into Day-Glo.
For many kids in those days, running to the Haight, dropping acid and blowing roadies (men in the motor trade as well as show-business) was the way to ‘fun’. Wealthy dilettantes don’t want to be found in the slums as they play. Money can be a trap too… A gilded cage, but where you have to look the part and act a certain way to mingle with the other wealthy inheritors. I would guess that The Beatles themselves could have felt that way. Normal blokes made into gods where their every whim could be catered for, but often in the full glare of a flashbulb, in a lens. I imagine that when they quit touring it was because even though they knew financially it was a risk, that it just wan’t fun being screamed at for twenty minutes just for the quids.
I may be reading too much into what is essentially a backing vocal, but we all have our interpretations of the music and that is what makes the band both timeless and universal.
I read a blog once where ‘fun is the one thing that money can’t buy’ was assumed to relate to penis size. I am pretty sure someone declared that ‘the man from the motor trade’ was an abortionist. I like my own notion better and also believe that with their level of craftmanship and curiosity at the time it would have been discussed in depth, not simply left because it fits. If they put a line like that into such an elegant track, there was a belief that although it wasn’t always true, it was true for that story. Peace.
It’s crucial to the meaning of John’s lines that he is singing the parts of the parents.
“We gave her most of our lives.”
“We struggled hard all our lives to get by.”
John’s lines are the parents expressing their total confusion that their daughter found her life with them empty. The “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy” line,shows us that the two have missed the point: of course fun can be bought!
What I love most about this podcast is the clinical examination, often psychic evaluation of a great band and the art they produced, but I can’t but wonder whether this show takes it too far.
It is a fascinating and enlightening chat as always, clearly conducted with passion and with a full faculty for facts, but c’mon guys (less so Richard) we are talking Pepper here! Even the listeners seem to be insane this week.
I agreed with much of what was said, the concept was discarded early and the album isn’t perfect (neither is Revolver which must have been a real chore to own on vinyl as it meant you would have to keep getting up to skip Yellow Submarine, a decent childrens song on an album for adults) but it is getting some pretty serious flack. It may not have aged well, but I am betting some of the snapshots in your family albums with Big 80s hair or earlier bellbottoms don’t have much to offer future generations in terms of picture framing or fashion.
Pepper was a snapshot, sure, but it is a snapshot of a time, both of flux and amalgamation, of possibility kissing poetry.
The cosmos conjoined Lennon and McCartney and again intervened when Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane were almost stolen for release ahead of the album. The mixture of preeminent tracks and ‘filler’ makes the album what it is. A sandwich needs a filling, but a great sandwich also needs bread and butter.
Pepper as it stands needed the likes of sixty four and leaving home because as they ventured further out they were also trying to take everyday people ‘down’ with them. You can kick off a couple of tracks but where would Strawberry Fields go in the mix, it is almost mightier because it was a single, singular. Too much weirdness and I think it throws the whole damn show off kilter and half the audience walk out confused during the interval.
Good Morning (x2) plods along when the album needs to plod, Rita is a vignette that most writers would be proud of. Nothing is out of place in a masterful production (despite the usual complaints from Lennon who was never satisfied) that may not revert you to childhood but will take you for the scenic route around the houses.
The historical significance is unquestioned and its impact undeniable. The idea that an album that had the greatest musicians of the greatest musical generation (of the 20th century) agog and rethinking their life choices is somehow inept and unworthy is not just a fallacy but a foolish one. Fashion comes and goes of course, but class is permanent.
The problem that Pepper has perhaps is that it was bookended (in terms of release and listening order) by Strawberry Fields and A Day in the Life, two of the finest Beatles, and therefore musical compositions. A whole album of such groundbreaking sonic exploration may be desirable, but improbable. Still, the band managed to come up with something progressive, awe-inspiring, palatable and eclectic enough to keep everybody interested, as they would again achieve with the White Album after some real lazy interim cod-psychedelia.
The album holds together, it has an arch even though it is invisible and it is a time capsule that is 95% interesting enough to make people wonder WTF (I exclude the title track and reprise which are basically a TV theme tune that has no place on a jukebox, and I include the Hendrix cover).
To paraphrase Paul, who discussing whether the White Album should have been a single rather than Double… “It’s Sgt Pepper, It’s The Beatles” Nuff said.
I still prefer Revolver on a daily basis, but when I pick up Pepper it’s a box of chocolates for the ears. Comparison is odious though, you can grade music, but in the end it is down to what it does to the listener. If an album makes you dance, cry or provokes nostalgia, or just makes you marvel it is all in the ears and the soul.
I will conclude by saying that all the serious fans who don’t like Pepper will still have listened to it at least a thousand times… Not bad for an album of filler and ‘weak lyrics’. Peace as per.
What I love most about this podcast is the clinical examination, often psychic evaluation of a great band and the art they produced, but I can’t but wonder whether this show takes it too far.
It is a fascinating and enlightening chat as always, clearly conducted with passion and with a full faculty for facts, but c’mon guys (less so Richard) we are talking Pepper here! Even the listeners seem to be insane this week.
I agreed with much of what was said, the concept was discarded early and the album isn’t perfect (neither is Revolver which must have been a real chore to own on vinyl as it meant you would have to keep getting up to skip Yellow Submarine, a decent childrens song on an album for adults) but it is getting some pretty serious flack. It may not have aged well, but I am betting some of the snapshots in your family albums with Big 80s hair or earlier bellbottoms don’t have much to offer future generations in terms of picture framing or fashion.
Pepper was a snapshot, sure, but it is a snapshot of a time, both of flux and amalgamation, of possibility kissing poetry.
The cosmos conjoined Lennon and McCartney and again intervened when Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane were almost stolen for release ahead of the album. The mixture of preeminent tracks and ‘filler’ makes the album what it is. A sandwich needs a filling, but a great sandwich also needs bread and butter.
Pepper as it stands needed the likes of sixty four and leaving home because as they ventured further out they were also trying to take everyday people ‘down’ with them. You can kick off a couple of tracks but where would Strawberry Fields go in the mix, it is almost mightier because it was a single, singular. Too much weirdness and I think it throws the whole damn show off kilter and half the audience walk out confused during the interval.
Good Morning (x2) plods along when the album needs to plod, Rita is a vignette that most writers would be proud of. Nothing is out of place in a masterful production (despite the usual complaints from Lennon who was never satisfied) that may not revert you to childhood but will take you for the scenic route around the houses.
The historical significance is unquestioned and its impact undeniable. The idea that an album that had the greatest musicians of the greatest musical generation (of the 20th century) agog and rethinking their life choices is somehow inept and unworthy is not just a fallacy but a foolish one. Fashion comes and goes of course, but class is permanent.
The problem that Pepper has perhaps is that it was bookended (in terms of release and listening order) by Strawberry Fields and A Day in the Life, two of the finest Beatles, and therefore musical compositions. A whole album of such groundbreaking sonic exploration may be desirable, but improbable. Still, the band managed to come up with something progressive, awe-inspiring, palatable and eclectic enough to keep everybody interested, as they would again achieve with the White Album after some real lazy interim cod-psychedelia.
The album holds together, it has an arch even though it is invisible and it is a time capsule that is 95% interesting enough to make people wonder WTF (I exclude the title track and reprise which are basically a TV theme tune that has no place on a jukebox, and I include the Hendrix cover).
To paraphrase Paul, who discussing whether the White Album should have been a single rather than Double… “It’s Sgt Pepper, It’s The Beatles” Nuff said.
I still prefer Revolver on a daily basis, but when I pick up Pepper it’s a box of chocolates for the ears. Comparison is odious though, you can grade music, but in the end it is down to what it does to the listener. If an album makes you dance, cry or provokes nostalgia, or just makes you marvel it is all in the ears and the soul.
I will conclude by saying that all the serious fans who don’t like Pepper will still have listened to it at least a thousand times… Not bad for an album of filler and ‘weak lyrics’. Peace as per.
It’s a day later than the last comment and the journey continues.
I have a couple of new points to make, to further understanding, to sort out questions and attempt a fresh perspective. Bear with me.
We all know the music of The Beatles here, though I do think a beginners guide would be a useful edition for the future, for listeners who know something about The Beatles but want to understand more the second stage of fandom, enter the hallway to obsession. People who know the albums, have a favourite, but may not understand the difference between Mono and Stereo, the entry obscurities, those that wish to learn rather than have things confirmed or turned on their heads. (I would also appreciate an art-themed show, where the influence of art school (and artists) is more closely examined. Much is made of The Beatles as musicians, of lyricists, as icons and humans, but for a group of recording artists, the ‘art’ and the process of creation and their need to create is often underestimated…)
But that is not the point I am trying to make here. I am again contemplating the Revolver/Pepper comparisons. To my mind, as I have already stated, there is no comparison needed, just as there wouldn’t be with A Hard Days Night or Abbey Road, you may as well compare cheese and onions.
I wonder, sincerely, and without judgement, whether before recording this episode, if you both took the hour and a half to sit down for the hour and a half to listen to both albums, preferably through a decent set of headphones. I don’t mean to be rude, but when you are expert in something, sometimes you may not think you need to get back to basics.
We all know the albums and have formed our opinions. We can hear the music in our minds ear as soon as the track title is mentioned. We have heard Taxman a thousand times at least, and A Day in the Life enough times to have lived a toddlers lifespan. I just wonder if we haven’t all become a little jaded, a little too knowing and sure of ourselves.
I was.
And I wondered how we would approach the subject with a stranger, someone that thought The Beatles were a decent band, but over-rated, or not so familiar.
I listened to Pepper in Mono. I am not sufficiently versed to know why this is better or worse than the original vinyl I grew up with, the version of which I couldn’t discern, or the first CD issue, or why it sounds different on headphones on my laptop. I am not a scientist, I am an audience. I heard things I had heard as often as my father called my name yet I tried to distance myself.
I wondered which album would excite the first time listener more, not someone weighted down with critical analysis, expert knowledge and years of music criticism and journalism to cloud and reinforce views.
Perhaps the reason that Revolver never got the kudos that it deserved on release is because it was another Beatles album rather than the work of a Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Tomorrow Never Knows is epic. It stands up today because it is so groundbreaking, but does the rest of Revolver contain anything other than a few catchy Beatles songs? Are the discordant melodies any different to what was attempted on ‘Yes it is’? Are the Ballads Yesterday redone? Do kids today even know who Mr Wilson and Mr Heath were? Who the fuck even owned a yellow submarine in Liverpool and if everyone lived on it, wasn’t it cramped, and if many more lived next door, were they in another submarine, if so, why mention them if your friends were on board yours?
I’m not slagging Revolver, I prefer it to Pepper, but if you were listening to both albums for the first time, which is more interesting, more accessible, would make you want to find out something about the Beatles? I’d argue Pepper, with its far more friendly, better produced, bells and whistles approach than its often solemn predecessor.
I realise that the podcast is for fans but I wonder if sometimes we know too much for our own good, that we have our ideas formed and often are so desperate to find something new that we forget to appreciate what we have, and to view them as works of art. I know I have been guilty of this, that looking for the best prototype will remove me from the end-product. I do not mean to label everybody with the same brush, or cause offence, I am just travelling on and writing it down. For those that know Pepper is overrated, just imagine you are hearing it for the first time, and listen again, even if the last time you listened was yesterday. Peace.
It’s a day later than the last comment and the journey continues.
I have a couple of new points to make, to further understanding, to sort out questions and attempt a fresh perspective. Bear with me.
We all know the music of The Beatles here, though I do think a beginners guide would be a useful edition for the future, for listeners who know something about The Beatles but want to understand more the second stage of fandom, enter the hallway to obsession. People who know the albums, have a favourite, but may not understand the difference between Mono and Stereo, the entry obscurities, those that wish to learn rather than have things confirmed or turned on their heads. (I would also appreciate an art-themed show, where the influence of art school (and artists) is more closely examined. Much is made of The Beatles as musicians, of lyricists, as icons and humans, but for a group of recording artists, the ‘art’ and the process of creation and their need to create is often underestimated…)
But that is not the point I am trying to make here. I am again contemplating the Revolver/Pepper comparisons. To my mind, as I have already stated, there is no comparison needed, just as there wouldn’t be with A Hard Days Night or Abbey Road, you may as well compare cheese and onions.
I wonder, sincerely, and without judgement, whether before recording this episode, if you both took the hour and a half to sit down for the hour and a half to listen to both albums, preferably through a decent set of headphones. I don’t mean to be rude, but when you are expert in something, sometimes you may not think you need to get back to basics.
We all know the albums and have formed our opinions. We can hear the music in our minds ear as soon as the track title is mentioned. We have heard Taxman a thousand times at least, and A Day in the Life enough times to have lived a toddlers lifespan. I just wonder if we haven’t all become a little jaded, a little too knowing and sure of ourselves.
I was.
And I wondered how we would approach the subject with a stranger, someone that thought The Beatles were a decent band, but over-rated, or not so familiar.
I listened to Pepper in Mono. I am not sufficiently versed to know why this is better or worse than the original vinyl I grew up with, the version of which I couldn’t discern, or the first CD issue, or why it sounds different on headphones on my laptop. I am not a scientist, I am an audience. I heard things I had heard as often as my father called my name yet I tried to distance myself.
I wondered which album would excite the first time listener more, not someone weighted down with critical analysis, expert knowledge and years of music criticism and journalism to cloud and reinforce views.
Perhaps the reason that Revolver never got the kudos that it deserved on release is because it was another Beatles album rather than the work of a Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Tomorrow Never Knows is epic. It stands up today because it is so groundbreaking, but does the rest of Revolver contain anything other than a few catchy Beatles songs? Are the discordant melodies any different to what was attempted on ‘Yes it is’? Are the Ballads Yesterday redone? Do kids today even know who Mr Wilson and Mr Heath were? Who the fuck even owned a yellow submarine in Liverpool and if everyone lived on it, wasn’t it cramped, and if many more lived next door, were they in another submarine, if so, why mention them if your friends were on board yours?
I’m not slagging Revolver, I prefer it to Pepper, but if you were listening to both albums for the first time, which is more interesting, more accessible, would make you want to find out something about the Beatles? I’d argue Pepper, with its far more friendly, better produced, bells and whistles approach than its often solemn predecessor.
I realise that the podcast is for fans but I wonder if sometimes we know too much for our own good, that we have our ideas formed and often are so desperate to find something new that we forget to appreciate what we have, and to view them as works of art. I know I have been guilty of this, that looking for the best prototype will remove me from the end-product. I do not mean to label everybody with the same brush, or cause offence, I am just travelling on and writing it down. For those that know Pepper is overrated, just imagine you are hearing it for the first time, and listen again, even if the last time you listened was yesterday. Peace.
I have been listening to recordings made by The Beatles since 1963. I enjoyed every album that they ever released (although not every track, of course). I have been surprised to hear R&R, on various episodes, speaking of “Revolver” as the best album of The Beatles’ early years (when they were very collaborative). Like many other people, I would rank “Rubber Soul” and “Sgt. Pepper …” (in that order) ahead of “Revolver,” because, above all else, I love melodic beauty in music; in my opinion — the “aggregate beauty” of the “R.S.” songs exceeds that of “S.P.” and far exceeds that of “Revolver.” In my opinion, there are too many songs on “Revolver” that have mediocre (or worse) melodies.
I have to believe that R&R, while they may appreciate melodic beauty, are more interested in other factors, so they arrive at a different ranking of the albums. “De gustibus non disputandum est.”
I have been listening to recordings made by The Beatles since 1963. I enjoyed every album that they ever released (although not every track, of course). I have been surprised to hear R&R, on various episodes, speaking of “Revolver” as the best album of The Beatles’ early years (when they were very collaborative). Like many other people, I would rank “Rubber Soul” and “Sgt. Pepper …” (in that order) ahead of “Revolver,” because, above all else, I love melodic beauty in music; in my opinion — the “aggregate beauty” of the “R.S.” songs exceeds that of “S.P.” and far exceeds that of “Revolver.” In my opinion, there are too many songs on “Revolver” that have mediocre (or worse) melodies.
I have to believe that R&R, while they may appreciate melodic beauty, are more interested in other factors, so they arrive at a different ranking of the albums. “De gustibus non disputandum est.”