Go ahead. Vote for the best one. Recommendations and comments are welcomed. I have a sneaky suspicion I missed one or more I should've added...
Having read this poll I have to add the Doors Strange Days also was influenced by Sgt.Peppers reading the liner notes of the 40th anniversary of Strange Days album release says Sgt Pepper was a big inspiration. I am a big Doors fan also but this did not suprise me even though they were recording this album when It came out. Similar thing happened when Brian Wilson was recording Pet Sounds then Rubber Soul came out then it influenced on how that album sounded.
very disappointing poll results
Note to self: ignore the Rock and Roll hall of fame for the rest of your life
Because there's nothing more authoritative than "best of" lists devised by retailers and merchandisers
Wow. That's gotta be one of the worst "best of" music lists I have ever seen.
It certainly gives the NME lists a run for their money...
...at the very least!
I posted it in response to a message by a new user which hasn't appeared yet. I'll add some more comments later
also very predictable
Just came out The Beatles Sgt Peppers was just voted as the greatest album ever by the Rock and Roll Hall of fame. I think the Beatles Revolver is the best by them. Like it or not the Beatles mastered the avant garde with pop or the non rock fusion with pop with tunes like A Day In The Life and Within You Without You a concept that the Velvet Undergound or anyone else could never master. Read Mojo Magaizine about Sgt Peppers and the albums it influenced.Later
The poll was for "best album of 1967". Of those 10, i'd rate sgt pepper either 9th or 10th, with younger than yesterday taking the other lowest spot.
A better question might be "most modern sounding album from 1967". Sgt Pepper might be 8th or 9th in that case.
I think it says a lot that Sgt Pepper sounds so dated compared to its contemporaries.
I think it says a lot that people still are talking about Sgt Pepper and most of these albums on this list are forgotton or on the dust bin.
If the Rock hall of fame had their way, those other albums *would* be forgotten. But they're not forgotten. Some of them have received far more recognition recently than they ever did in the 1960s.
I agree with you that some of those albums are finally getting their due but that should not take away anything the Beatles did becuase it was the Beatles and not those albums that influenced rock music at the time. That's why Pierro Scaruffi sounds angry to me, his acts were not acclaimed at the time but remember the Beatles spearheaded most likely the most influential decade in rock music and still remained on top.
i think you're oversimplifying things. there were lots of things going on during those years, lots of which had nothing to do with any beatles albums
They are not resposible for everthing in Rock music at that time period by that was not my point but can you name one rock artist who was more influential in the 60'S than the Beatles and still endures as an influence. The artists who came from the 60s that are still a major influence is a small number and the Beatles and Led Zeppelin are on the top of that list.
the stooges sound more relevant and modern than either of those bands
I have a similar gripe with the 1990s being reduced to nothing but kurt cobain
(i posted this in the wrong spot above)
I'm not looking forward to the next "It was 40 years ago ..." rehash that's likely to happen this june.
"and many albums of late 67 and 1968 by the Who, the Hollies, Small Faces and Cream are other examples."
was the Cream album Disraeli Gears?
"The album was praised for its production ...sitar ... cover ... chord progressions."
Praised for everything except its songs :-)
Well it was praised for it's songs like A Day in the Life and how the Beatles were determined to make the album sound like no other and I think they did it. I like the album a lot and there are several songs on the albums that sound like nothing I never heard before Within You Without You and of course A Day in the Life. I like the use of seques and I love some of the innovations on the album like the 40 second piano chord and the violin slide guitar of Lovely Rita and many others I could pick out. I have heard eight of the ten albums on this list and I think Revolver is better than all of them including Sgt Pepper. I actually like Magical Mystery Tour better than Sgt Pepper but I don't think it sounds dated at all it sounds great to me compared to someone like Captain Beefhart or Frank Zappa. The article says albums of late 1967 and latter and all of those acts have cited the Beatles as an influence and it also influenced albums from the Flaming Lips and also Tears for Fears. Can you name one album that Captain Beefhart or even the Rolling Stones has influenced before you thrash the Beatles.
What warms my heart about the "thrashing" the Beatles get is that it seems to be all about their reputation and acclaim. Very little of it seems to be about the Beatles.
Most of the criticism comes in the form of "this song is better," "that album was greater," "they did this first," "their group was more influential" and so on. It appears to me that the Beatles remain the measuring stick for pop music (broadly constructed.) That's hard to remember when people use that stick to thrash out at the Fab Four. Critiquing the Beatles on their own merits seems to be irrelevant... or too difficult for most.
I will add this analysis: Magical Mystery Tour is a mess... it might be an enjoyable mess, but there it is. Sgt Pepper might be messy, but it is not a mess. And I like Sgt Pepper better.
Most of my comments about them are in response to claims made about them. The comment that someone did something earlier isn't a criticism, it's a history lesson.
I'd rather not mention them at all.
Critiquing the beatles on their own merits will do nothing but stir things up. There are plenty of things i could criticize them about, like their lyrics for starters, but i dont see the point. It would also mean i'd have to listen to their albums again, and i dont want to do that either.
I know that I'm incredibly sensitive and emotionally fragile but the thought that "[c]ritiquing the beatles on their own merits will do nothing but stir things up" makes me terrified as to what will happen if the critiques get personal.
I have to apologize. I did not intend to pressure you into listening to the Beatles' music again before you criticized their lyrics or plenty of other things. I was just trying to lend my emotional support to ledzepp78.
I actually like history in spite of the fact that I have trouble with names and dates that aren't put into context. Was it 1492 or 1493 Columbus sailed "the ocean blue" or "the deep blue sea"? I'd welcome (and probably love) a history lesson. If I don't learn from it I will be doomed to repeat it.
I know your antipathy towards the Four who must not be named but there must be other things where you know better than I to write about. If I don't learn from it I will be doomed to repeat it.
why would he need emotional support. it's not as though he's in the minority
I actually think the majority of us need some emotional support. I just feel like being empathetic (perhaps minus the "em.")
You also have my sympathies. It's difficult to go against the majority and try to overturn conventional opinion. That does tend to "stir things up." It makes otherwise reasonable people unable to follow your reasoning, no matter how intelligent, well-informed and historically grounded you may be.
Somebody needs a hug.
Oh!.. It's me.
are you from the USA?
I listen to The Beatles becuase I like them. I don't like everything they did but I hear a band who has great melodies, great bass work, brilliant vocal harmonies, a great ability to fuse different genres with pop, great chord sequences and innovative sounds . From Rubber Soul to Abbey Road all those ingredients peaked and now you have the band whose guitar work has caught up and I will say this as a guitarist but the guitar work on the White Album and Abbey Road is better than the Stones and The Who of that time period. As songwriters they composed songs with no rock instruments Eleanor Rigby, She's Leaving Home, Indian based songs like Love You To and to songs that call out on Politicians like Taxman and Revolution and to great piano based songs like the second medley on Abbey Road. My criticism the lyrics at times were a bit weak especially in the begining and the drum work on the White Album was not great. The first album is not the greatest debut and yeh they had some filler songs but who did not. Also as a musician Paul McCartney there might not be a better all around rock musician than him and he also produced seven number one albums in his career. Thats how I rate the Beatles on their own merits not really compared to anyone else but, I did have to point out the guitar work becuase to me that became a real strong point of their work Here Comes The Sun and Blackbird to name a few songs.
I have a similar gripe with the 1990s being reduced to nothing but kurt cobain
Are telling me songs like Rain and Tomorrow Never Knows are not original and innovative or Strawberry Fields Forever are not the equal of your Velvet Underground please. The Sgt Pepper album was certainly a concept album in terms of the linkage of songs, the reprise, and the loop track which was the hidden track I was talking about. Freak Out according to Zappa was a narrative concept album. They are two types of concept albums narrative or story based Freak Out and Tommy or the non narrative concept albums Abbey Road and Sgt Peppers. You guys like Frank Zappa and Velvet Underground but compared to The Beatles they sound so atonal. European Son to the great fusion of classical music and great vocal harmonies of Becuase on Abbey Road. Another point you mentioned Kurt Cobain, guess who was a major influence on Nirvana and particularly Nevermind the Beatles.
the intro and the reprise are the only things that might make it a concept album. the rest of it is a collection of songs like any other album.
"compared to The Beatles they sound so atonal"
so? like i said elsewhere, if the beatles are your ideal then of course these other bands are going to grate.
i've heard that cobain was a fan of the beatles. but to me their music is much closer to lots of other bands. cobain was a fan of hundreds of bands.
"I have heard eight of the ten albums on this list"
interesting. which ones havent you heard? how many 1967 albums have you heard that arent on there?
The only albums I have not given a listen to on this list are the Red Crayola's and Captain Beefhart but I have listened to Trout Mask Replica. I like how the album sounds and like the various segues on this album which many artists later would use prominently like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. I also like how many types of genres that are being fused on this album and to me that separates the Beatles from most of their peers. If it's anything it's a different type of concept album with the various seques, reprise and the hidden track at the end of the album . If you can name one example of this type of album prior to Sgt Pepper I would like to know and I don't mean Frank Zappa Freak out or others that claim to have a narrative concept.
trouble is a lonesome town by lee hazlewood (1963) has an intro, narration as segues between tracks and it ends on the title track that's mentioned in the first few seconds of the first track. every track (not only two of them) relates directly to the theme
Freak Out has a concept but no narrative. Sgt Pepper has no narrative or concept.
The endless loop at the end of Sgt Pepper (is this the hidden track you mean?) is the earliest example that i know of. The intro and reprise ... i dont know.
I mentioned Disraeli Gears because it turns out that it was recorded in May (before sgt pepper was released), or at least recording started in May, so it's inaccurate to say that Sgt Pepper inspired or influenced the creation of the album.
The same goes for several other important albums of '67
Whether or not they mastered it is a matter of opinion. Personally I'd say they didn't and that others have done it better.
I doubt that the people who compiled this definitive list are interested in the avant garde or fusion or innovation or whatever else. If that were the case, their selections and omissions don't make much sense.
I'm not going to read mojo magazine. Can you summarize what they said and tell me which albums they mentioned? The two albums most directly influenced by sgt peppers don't provide much of a case -- "Satanic Majesties..." was one of the Rolling Stones worst albums and "We're Only in it for the Money" made a mockery of the beatles.
Really this is nothing more than an excuse to put a "definitive 200" sticker on some CDs. It's not an authoritative overview of "the art form of the record album", it's a marketing exercise.
So i'm at a loss as to why you would even mention it.
I said the Beatles mastered avant garde with pop can you name a band who did it better. I did not say they were an outright avant band. Some of the albums that Sgt. Pepper influenced that Mojo Magazine mention were The Zombies Odessey, Radiohead O.K Computer, Prince Around the World in a Day, Oasis Be Here Now, Creedence Clearwater Willie and the Poor Boys, Smashing Pumpkins Mellon Collie and many albums of late 67 and 1968 by the Who, the Hollies, Small Faces and Cream are other examples. The album was praised for it's production, use of instruments not really common in rock like the sitar, tamboura, celeste and others, the album cover and for its chord progressions. Another revelation mentioned was that Revolver heavily influenced the Byrd's Younger than Yesterday album and that Brian Wilson was very impressed with Strawberry Fields Forever. I don't care if you guys don't like the Beatles what bothers me is that you guys seem to forget when the Beatles released these albums they were hugely influential when they came out and they had to compete with The Stones who were a step or two behind the Beatles that it became a running joke in England.