Sgt Pepper voted #1

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:21 pm

It really is a superb album. I was on a Revolver kick a few months back. I always thought 1966 was a great year for Lennon compositions. (And Your Bird Can Sing, I'm Only Sleeping, She Said She Said and Rain). But then I pulled out Pepper and was reminded that it truly is a great piece of music. Personally I don't think Norman Smith could have done the job Geoff Emerick did. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:34 pm

My 2 cents worth:

I too, love SPLHCB and Revolver. I have a Japanese, British, Canadian, and US copies of SPLHCB on vinyl. It may be the same version of the song on each LP, but from working in record stores in the 80s, we always thought the vinyl grade also had a lot to do with the sound. You may have a pricey phono cartridge, but if the vinyl is below grade, then the sound wouldn't be that great.. The Japanese editions were always the best. I'm not comparing these to the MOFI editions...

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:09 am

Agreed. The Japanese have always used virgin vinyl in their record pressings. Most other countries put impurities in their vinyl to cut costs. That's why Mo Fi records were pressed in Japan.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:30 am

While perhaps looking at this in a different way, one measure of the quality of a release is how it is received by those artists who were in competition with the Beatles for a slice of the charts.

David Crosby, was blown away by this release and brought a tape of the Sergeant Pepper album to the hotel in Seattle where the Jefferson Airplane were staying as well. Crosby is quoted as saying that " we played it all night in the lobby with a hundred young fans listening quietly on the stairs, as if rapt by a spiritual experience."

Whether Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band was you cup of tea or not, and whether you fancy the recording, mixing or vinyl medium, history does support that it did have a significant impact on artists of the day who considered that the Beatles had raised the bar, yet again.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:37 am

The 1996 is superb.

Like I said, even though he said he thought his writing output was lower than normal during those sessions, Lennon though Pepper's was the best they ever did.

I think his two of his three favorite tracks (his own, that) were on it (Kite and A Day In...) the other being Walrus.

Not sure why he thought his output was lower, having written Lucy in the Sky, Kite, Good Morning, most of A Day in the Life, and co-written A Little Help From My Friends, that's nearly half the LP, and if you count Strawberry as being from the same sessions that's a significant number of great tunes.

jt10824 · Post by **jt10824** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:26 am

I think the reason Lennon looked back unfavorably on Pepper was because it marked the point where, due to his infatuation with LSD, he began to lose his control over the band to Paul. According to Emerick, Paul was always the de facto leader behind the scenes, anyway -- certainly in the recording studio -- but he began to assert himself more openly during the long months of recording Pepper. After Brian Epstein died the following summer, that strengthened Paul's position even more.

Lennon tried to regain leadership during the recording of the White Album, but by then he was so distracted (and besotted) by Yoko (and heroin) that the sessions were just chaos, again according to Emerick. When Emerick quit, Lennon tried to talk him into staying. One of the things he said to him, oddly enough, was, "Everybody thinks Pepper is a great album but I think it's the biggest load of sh*t we've ever done," or words to that effect. Emerick wasn't sure why John said that, other than the fact that Paul was in earshot and he was trying to insult him. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall for those sessions!

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:18 am

SPLHCB did make a severe impact on how pop music was perceived back then. At that time, instead of making music that was danceable- they made music that was to be listened to.

I forgot about that 100% Virgin Vinyl thing with the Japanese editions... I'm going to have to pull out those MOFIs later tonite.

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:23 am

Anybody hear the MOFI UHQR version of Pepper? I used to have it but I sold it... I wish I hadn't.

westtexasrickenbacker · Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:07 am

Good opinion, John! I'd have to agree with you on the balance of power shifting, the drug use and the dreaded 'Yoko' factor all deteriorating the cohesion of the group.

I've been rereading the Emerick book and it, for the most part, coincides with the vast amount of other published material we've all read. The book just has a wealth more of specific 'nuts and bolts' detail on the individual sessions.

jt10824 · Post by **jt10824** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:34 am

I honestly have no idea where this business of "Emerick's book is full of mistakes" came from, other than people blindly repeating Ken Scott's mostly false allegations without looking into it for themselves. Scott's clearly got an agenda of his own (sour grapes, IMHO) and I note that he seems to be in a minority of one.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:09 am

I'm not sure why ken Scott disagrees with Emerick. It will be interesting to read his story.

jt10824 · Post by **jt10824** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:13 am

Scott doesn't plan on telling his story, that's the problem. He claims he has a lousy memory so he has no plans to write a book. On the other hand, he wants people to believe that his memory is good enough to challenge Emerick's version of events -- even on sessions that Scott himself wasn't present at, which is ridiculous.

My mother told me a long time ago that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Taking potshots is cheap, and it's cowardly to rag on someone when you don't have the guts to face the public yourself (as Emerick did). If Scott's memory really is as lousy as he says, then he can't possibly be justified in questioning Emerick's veracity.

And even if Scott IS right on a couple of points, attacking a former colleague publicly via the Internet is still a thoroughly unprofessional (and, IMHO, low-life) thing to do.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:06 pm

>>I think the reason Lennon looked back unfavorably on Pepper was because it marked the point where, due to his infatuation with LSD, he began to lose his control over the band to Paul.<<

If you're referring to comments he made about recording it, I think it's clear that he was making a statement about their performances and recordings, not the material.

Because he went on, in the same interview, to point out that in very much the same way he was never, ever satisfied with any of their recordings once they finished them (and would you expect him to? Mr. Martin pointed out that he and McCartney were perfectionists who seemed always to think everything could always be improved upon. Martin was initially hurt and confused by Lennon's statements but came to understand that they were from one of the same perfectionist lads he'd always known was that way.)

Lennon implied that favorite tracks on that album rank among his best, and that if anything he just felt like he had slacked off on his writing (whereas Paul clearly had not, and had the initial idea of Pepper.)

I think it's pretty clear that during the couple years leading up to Pepper Lennon wasn't so interested in "controlling" the band beyond delivering as many high quality tunes as he could.

Otherwise, his dissatisfaction at the time was limited to feeling bored out in the suburbs while in a band that was no longer touring.

westtexasrickenbacker · Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:28 am

I think the drug use on John's part was the biggest contributing factor to the group's demise. I wish he hadn't of imposed that drug haze upon himself. Prior to that, he was the leader of the group, with Paul being a very strong #2. In hindsight, I think the Beatles functioned better that way. Probably because they were all afraid of John's temper!?

Paul being the leader changed the dynamic too much and it probably was too hard for John's ego. It certainly taxed his friendship with George, based upon comments George made for years after the break-up. Those perfectionist tendencies annoyed the other three tremendously. I wonder if George ever really got over those last few years in the Beatles in regards to his friendship with Macca.

By the way he treats Paul in the Anthology series in scenes where the 3 remaining get together and recall stories, I don't think he did.

OOPs, but I digress. Pepper's was the landmark album in Pop History. Sorry.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:32 pm

I think when Lennon talked about being the leader, it was in the very early years. Once they became successful, had management and a long term linup in place, it was a writing and performing partnership and self-governing democracy, though as George wanted to do more later on he had long established forces working against him.

The biggest contributing factor to breaking them up was the double whammy of Epstein dying and Apple rotting, with the latter probably being the most destructive force (it probably would have been veto'd or greatly restricted had their manager still been alive.)

Without Brian dying, and Apple in such bad shape, there woudn't have been the fights over milliions of lost pounds and who was going to try to save the ship.