Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 6

George Harrison's claims
George claimed in interviews that he had virtually no involvement with the album except for "Within You Without You", but photographic evidence, session tapes and the outtakes on the 50th anniversary box set clearly belie his statements: he was very much involved, played and sang backing vocals on virtually every track, sang lead vocals and played on "Within You Without You" (he wrote it), could be heard making suggestions and was very much present. It is likely that what he said to the press was based on his mood or whichever journalists were interviewing him, not already well-established facts, and remember: don't take everything he, John, Paul or Ringo say as the gospel, since John gave some very angry interviews after the group disbanded and made some unfounded claims, but later recanted what he said on the grounds of his anger at the time, and furthermore, none of them had flawless memories and were prone to misremembering things from long ago, possibly due to their copious drug use, namely LSD, or just not having perfect memories.

Another claim that I take offence to is George saying that Paul and Ringo were recording the basic tracks alone and that they weren't allowed to play as a band as such, but again the aforementioned evidence (photos, session tapes and outtakes) will refute those claims, because his statement, again likely based on his mood at the time of the interview, overlooks the fact that they did record basic tracks together as a group, so remember to be very careful what source you use and don't be gullible enough to believe everything you read. I don't know if George was misremembering or whether he exaggerated it to sell stories to the media, but again, you can't expect an ageing rocker to have a perfect and vivid memory of events that occurred nearly 50 years ago, especially if they were doing so much drugs and alcohol. 203.221.15.210 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * When did Harrison say that "he had virtually no involvement with the album except for "Within You Without You"? In what publication? He said a few times that he had little enthusiasm for the album, and in hindsight only liked a few songs (Lucy in the Sky, Day in the Life among them). That was in interviews he gave for the album's 20th anniversary, and again in Anthology in the 1990s. But he's obviously there on almost all the tracks, and in a lot of cases, his contributions are subtle but important. (George Martin once said it was Harrison, out of all the Beatles, who was most dedicated to finding and achieving new sounds. And Pepper, like Revolver, was certainly about new sounds.)
 * As far as I know, it was only McCartney who claimed Harrison was hardly there during the Pepper sessions. That was in 1987 also, and it's widely dismissed by biographers as an inaccurate comment, made by McCartney at a time when he was looking to assert himself in the face of what he saw as an inaccurate media bias towards Lennon in the years following his murder, a bias that supposedly diminished McCartney's creative role in the Beatles. Both Harrison and Starr have commented on what a drag the Pepper sessions were, that the four of them weren't able to really play as a band because the focus was on building up rhythm tracks with a view to the end result – there was little chance to perform as a four-piece. Those comments appear in the Beatles Anthology book, for a start. So, right or wrong, it is the official word from half the band (i.e., not just some jibe in an interview that's then perhaps taken out of context).
 * I'm not disagreeing with you about the perils of revisionism, but I would say it's probably McCartney who's been most active in that department regarding Sgt. Pepper. Again, this is all down to what several Beatles biographers describe as a legacy-related campaign that McCartney began in the 1980s. (His 1984 Playboy interview, a 1986 Rolling Stone interview, the essay by Paul Du Noyer in his 1989–90 tour programmes, and the Barry Miles book Many Years from Now are all seen as major statements in that campaign. And then there's the McCartney–Lennon songwriting credits. Ahem.)
 * All this ties into – and I'm like an old record on the subject – how this article focuses overly on the history of Pepper as decided by McCartney and his most loyal cohorts, such as Geoff Emerick and Barry Miles, and by Ian MacDonald, from the '80s onwards. Read the coverage given to Pepper before then, say in Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever or Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record, and it's very much presented as a group project. (Because, Harrison and Lennon each shook off their initial inertia and got right into its creation, and you can read about their belief in the end product in contemporary interviews.) That's not to say that McCartney didn't lead the project, nor that we shouldn't ensure the latter issue is made loud and clear. But the article goes too far in McCartney's direction – his ambitions and influences, for instance. I tried to deal with this back in about 2015, I think, just to lessen McCartney's presence slightly in the article, because, as it stood then, it was a joke. (We got to hear from McCartney, Martin and Emerick at every turn, with barely a word about Lennon, Harrison and Starr.) At that time, I cut some of the points about/from Martin and Emerick, because they were almost gratuitous; plus, Emerick's received some criticism for the inaccuracy, and obvious McCartney bias, in his book. I also added comments regarding Lennon, Harrison and Starr's unfavourable recollections of the sessions, again, just to give them a presence and to lessen the Paul-George-Geoff Effect. Perhaps, because they were said years later, these comments from J, G & R belong much later in the article – perhaps that's what you're picking up on now, the fact that they're presented midway through description of the album's creation? That's easy enough to fix, but I think the article's got way bigger problems re undue weight, as mentioned. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, but again, as I say, not everything John, Paul, George or Ringo say or have said is 100% accurate. As I said earlier, the outtakes to the 50th anniversary box set dispel the myth, as do session photographs, that they weren't all playing together in the studio and George was known to say some things based on his mood, according to a forum. 203.221.15.210 (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha – a forum no less! Indeed, "George" might have said things based on mood, but just as long as it's understood that "Paul" has said things based on personal agenda. That's all I'm saying, because in this Pepper article, we're basing so much on McCartney's legacy-campaign rhetoric and on books loyal to that (Miles, MacDonald). I see this more and more when working on Beatles articles here (most recently in Lennon Remembers), to the point I'm considering writing an article titled Rivalry between John Lennon and Paul McCartney. JG66 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * JG66 is saying that nothing in the article claims that Harrison wasn't involved.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

waxes
"The collage includes 57 photographs and nine waxworks"

9 waxworks ? Sonny Liston, 4 Beatles, Diana Dors, maybe an unidentified cow-boy on the right (visible on some pictures). Waxes of whom are the others ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Liston, Dors, Dr. Livingstone, George Bernard Shaw, T.E. Lawrence and the Beatles were wax. Piriczki (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The cow-boy is a «soft» sculpture by Jann Haworth (same as the «Stones» doll and the Old Lady) and some of the other waxworks are just heads placed within the cardboard cutouts... Poirier2000 (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Album cover art
Hi. Would never edited this article myself as there are far too many Beatles fans that would have better opinions, but shouldn't Stuart Sutcliffe be mentioned in the section of people on the cover, given his profile and his level of influence at the beginning of the group? --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing psychedelic rock to psychedelia
The words "psychedelic rock" never appear in the article. I count: Shouldn't the infobox instead link to Psychedelia?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2016‎ (UTC)
 * 1) Wagner felt the album's music reconciles the "diametrically opposed aesthetic ideals" of classical and psychedelia, achieving a "psycheclassical synthesis" of the two forms
 * 2) Womack credits the track's "driving rock sound" with distinguishing it from the album's overtly psychedelic material
 * 3) Julien considers the latter a "masterpiece of British psychedelia".

Psychedelic pop
In case anyone's keeping track of such things, the album's psychedelic pop, according to this Sydney Morning Herald piece. I'm not suggesting we add it, but, well ... JG66 (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

NME list
The section covering John Harris' 40th anniversary reappraisal writes "With regard to its absence from the NME's best-albums list in 1987". I'm not sure if the mistake is in the source or the prose, but the NME list was actually from 1985. Published on 30 November 1985 to be exact. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're right. I've recently seen the poll and Pepper's exclusion referred to in a Hot Press or Irish Times piece – with the 1985 date. I think I'd got confused by Harris' description regarding chronology of polls and critical fall from grace. Will change it in the article, unless it's already done. JG66 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Pop music/press between August 1966–January 1967 leading into Pepper
Some interesting excerpts from Ken Womack's new George Martin biography:


 * For his part, George [Martin] felt a shift in the industry over the past several months, and he astutely traced it back to Brian Wilson, the Beach Boys, and Pet Sounds. As he later remarked, "Pet Sounds became the criterion of excellence in our world. His [Wilson]'s genius seemingly encompassed everything." With Pet Sounds, Martin later observed, Wilson "gave the Beatles quite a good deal to think about in trying to keep up with him." And the Beach Boys weren't the only competition on the horizon.
 * [...] while they were wowed by [Jimi Hendrix], Lennon and McCartney didn't perceive him as a threat. Throughout the production of Revolver and beyond, Martin had recognized that "Brian [Wilson] was the musician who challenged them most of all," who beckoned Lennon and McCartney especially to raise the already high level of their artistry and to venture intro previously unexplored vistas of creativity. By November 1966, "no one had made a bigger impact on the Beatles than Brian," in George's estimation, not even the likes of Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, or Bob Dylan.
 * The ramifications of Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations" were felt most acutely by George and the bandmates toward the end of 1966, when the music trade magazines began parceling out their annual awards. [...] For his part, Ringo didn't miss a beat, remarking soon thereafter that "we're all four fans of the Beach Boys, maybe we voted for them."
 * By this point, the Beatles' epitaph had been writ large in entertainment magazines and trade journals across the Western world. [...] While they were no doubt cognizant of "Good Vibrations" and the Beach Boys' apotheosis as their heir apparent, Martin and the bandmates were never lacking the confidence to plow forward. And they were competitive to a fault, seeing "Good Vibrations" as a direct challenge.
 * As he later recalled, "The Beatles thought Pet Sounds, its vocal harmonies in particular, was a fantastic album. I thought it was great too. 'Could we do as well as that?' they asked me, in the run-up to their own new long-player. 'No,' I replied. 'We can do better.'"

I'm happy that Womack covered this subject well. By comparison, the article has nil of this coverage. There's one quote from Paul about music papers "slagging us off", a small paragraph about Pet Sounds, and two mentions of "Good Vibrations" tucked away in a footnote. I don't think the article needs more references to the Beach Boys (couldn't hurt), but more of a sense that the Beatles were thought to be finished between Revolver and "Strawberry Fields", and also an acknowledgement of the changes happening in the music industry during that interim. Psychedelia is barely even mentioned.

I'd integrate some of these excerpts into the article, but thought it'd be better to drop them here first.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Womack's book
 * As with almost every suggestion or edit you make to a Beatles article, it's very difficult not to see this as being more about increasing appreciation for Brian Wilson than about giving the reader a greater understanding of the subject of the article. There's an entire paragraph dedicated to Pet Sounds under Concept & inspiration. Within that, there are two multi-sentence end notes, which, if the note markup is removed (I just tried it), combine with the existing text to create a pretty massive paragraph. There's more on Wilson under "Recording and cover", most of which is in another long, history-lesson-type end note.


 * We already quote Martin saying "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper never would have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds." So it's difficult to see how most of what's listed above from the Womack book adds anything new to the point. Not only that but one could say Womack is out to credit Martin with far too much, and/or Martin seems intent on downplaying just how revolutionary Revolver was. As many other authors and critics have it, the Beatles were streaks ahead of all their rivals in late '66 with Revolver. (I know this well from working on the Revolver article and related song articles for two years or more.) This article makes no mention of that widely held view, at least it doesn't in the introductory sections, and that's a way bigger problem than the lack of discussion of changes happening in the music industry at the time.


 * It also seems to me – and it's a charge that's often laid at associates of the Beatles – that George Martin assumed to know everything about the Beatles. Yes, he was their producer and collaborator, but he wasn't in the loop as far as their philosophical interests and drug-taking went, or the inspiration they drew from the London underground and wider cultural scene – yet it's all this and a whole lot more that the Beatles brought to their music with each album. But even on the music side, in late 1966 Lennon and Harrison were bowled over by the Incredible String Band, Spector's production of "River Deep Mountain High", and Otis Redding. Martin rated Brian Wilson very highly, of course, and duly pressed it on the Beatles. But to read "By November 1966, 'no one had made a bigger impact on the Beatles than Brian,' in George's estimation, not even the likes of Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, or Bob Dylan" seems extraordinary: it just does not tally with what the individual Beatles say in The Beatles Anthology, for instance, nor what their friends and associates said, about the impact that Presley and Dylan had on each of them. In the same way, I've never been able to fathom Gould's assertion that "of the many ambitious pop singles released during the fall of 1966, none had a stronger influence on the Beatles than the Beach Boys' 'Good Vibrations'" – in that I've never read a Beatle saying that or anything like that. Also, the Beatles were incensed that Martin got and took so much credit for Sgt. Pepper; even McCartney complained about it in a late 1967 interview. Womack appears to have no qualms about lauding "George" to the heavens, and this is obvious enough in his previous books (eg Long and Winding Roads), but I don't think that makes Martin's recollections any sort of essential truth. He saw things a certain way, but he presumed to speak on behalf of all the Beatles, and about all things Beatles.


 * With the bit about the December '66 UK magazine readers' polls, I'd say Womack got that from Spitz's book or perhaps Wikipedia's article (Good Vibrations). What Womack doesn't say (and what the song article omitted until I added it) is that the contemporary reports in Billboard, KRLA Beat and the NME all pointed out that the Beatles' lack of UK concerts that year and failure to issue a single close to polling time was as much a possible influence on the results as was "Good Vibrations"' success and the fact that the Beach Boys had just toured the UK in the autumn.


 * My solution for Background and Concept & inspiration sections
 * I think the entire Background and Concept & inspiration sections need reworking to provide a more representative introduction to how the Beatles approached the album and the experiences and influences they brought with them into the studio. In part, some background on the music scene in late 1966 might be welcome, but it's also a cultural perspective that's needed. That would involve adding a fair bit but also cutting more, and moving some text forward from Recording & production or later on.


 * On the subject of Beach Boys content, I'd cut note 45 completely – it's waffle, and nothing directly to do with Pepper at all. The link, in the main text, to Recording studio as musical instrument is where readers can go for more information. Besides, Revolver is the album where the Beatles really used the studio as a "musical instrument", so the approach should be introduced long before this end-of-article "Recording & cover" section, and it certainly shouldn't be introduced as a Martin-led approach (because it definitely wasn't). Up at note 3, under Concept & inspiration, there's a link to Musicianship of Brian Wilson, which to my way of thinking means that everything in note 3 can be ditched, apart from Gould's claim regarding "Good Vibrations" – although the latter could probably be replaced by Martin's comment from Womack 2018. In note 4, Emerick's comment should go; partly because it concerns just one song, and partly because Emerick's autobiography has been criticised for its inaccuracies, among other things, which is one reason I've been keen to lessen the constant Macca/Martin/Emerick three-prong "insights" that seemed to roll off almost every piece of information when this article made FA.


 * Removing those items will take nothing at all from the reader's understanding of Pepper and the Beach Boys' influence on the album. If there's more to add on the BBs that is directly relevant to Pepper, then fine, but it's those add-on, what I'm calling "history lessons" that read like an indulgence, and should be avoided. (I'm talking especially about examples of one sentence of text, followed by three or four sentences in an end note. Often with quote after quote ...)


 * Although the article does state that "Upon the Beatles' return to England, rumours began to circulate that they had decided to break up", perhaps more can be added on that. I agree that the Background section could touch (lightly) on what you describe as "the changes happening in the music industry during that interim". But I'm more concerned about the more obvious omissions. The opening discussion about the 1966 tours should be cut right down. Background should mention where the band had progressed to, artistically, with Revolver, just as Revolver mentions Rubber Soul, and The Beatles mentions Sgt. Pepper. A major development, according to most commentators, was that McCartney finally took LSD for the first time in late 1966. Pepper being the Summer of Love album, and McCartney being its chief creator, and the prevalence of drug imagery that led to the BBC banning some of the songs all suggest that this is a vital point to establish up-front. Another point: as Steve Turner writes, it was unthinkable at the time that a top pop act would retire from live performance altogether and continue as simply recordings artists. (He mentions Presley as a possible precedent, post-Army, but qualifies it with the point that by then Elvis was a fully fledged film star, with two or more movies a year.)


 * As I've said before, I don't think the mention of the initial "Northern childhood" theme should ever have been removed from Concept & inspiration. Okay, it wasn't a formal concept for the work, as some writers suggest, but it was a theme that Lennon brought in with "Strawberry Fields", that McCartney responded to with "Penny Lane", and that McCartney took further by dusting off the nostalgic "When I'm 64". And per MacDonald, McCartney has acknowledged (in a 1995 Mojo interview) that the "Northern childhood" idea remained an underlying theme on Pepper. (This includes: evocations of the postwar Northern music hall tradition, references to Northern industrial towns and Liverpool schooldays, Lewis Carroll-inspired imagery, the use of brass instrumentation in the style of park bandstand performances such as at Sefton Park, and the album cover's flower arrangement akin to a floral clock.) Aside from those reasons for reinstating the point, its omission from the section produces an effect whereby Concept & inspiration suggests that Sgt. Pepper was solely a combination of McCartney's whims and the influence of the Beach Boys and the Mothers of Invention. There's no mention in the section of the psychedelic/childhood/nostalgia aspect that kickstarted the project and remained a constant, just as there's no mention of the heights the Beatles had reached with Revolver and how they started off on Pepper with no other plan than to pick up from where they left off. (The latter point comes later in the article, I think. In fact – and the placement of the Concept subsection under Retrospective criticism is one, puzzling example – it may be the case that other info is just in the wrong place. The article's structure is bizarre in places. On the other hand, it may be that the inclusion of this Concept & inspiration section is the real problem: maybe it would be better to dismantle it and take the text into later sections, rather than working the other way ...)


 * Nor is there any mention of the sense of liberation the Beatles felt when starting Pepper, with their live career now a thing of the past. As with the influence of Pet Sounds, that point is something that's frequently commented on in McCartney's and Martin's interviews about the Pepper project, so too is the underground/cultural landscape in London, although the latter is often overlooked by American authors. For instance: in Granada TV's It Was Twenty Years Ago Today, McCartney says "By the time we came to make Sgt. Pepper, we started to incorporate more of the crazy life that we were living at the time into the music. We started to believe there weren't that many frontiers, not too many barriers, really, so we could do things." He doesn't say a word about Pet Sounds or the Beach Boys, nor does anyone in the entire film. George Martin, in a 2007 Mojo feature edition on Pepper, emphasises this same freedom aspect; the magazine's writers draw attention also to the London inspiration but, like Martin, do not mention the Beach Boys at all apart from to say that Wilson abandoned Smile not long after hearing "Strawberry Fields". At the end of the 2016 documentary Eight Days a Week, McCartney talks about how they wanted to capture the vibe in London when starting Pepper; again, no mention of Pet Sounds there. I watched a 50th anniversary Pepper film a couple of times last year – I guess it was Apple's Sgt. Pepper's Musical Revolution – and I don't believe there was anything about Pet Sounds in that either. (I was on a plane both times so I might have nodded off at some point; happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong.)


 * I mention the above only to give some idea of how, while McCartney and Martin have repeatedly identified Pet Sounds as a huge influence on Pepper (far more so than they have not, I've no doubt), there are other major sources of inspiration and other influences that the Beatles brought to Pepper, as identified by the participants and by third-party reliable sources. So all of that should be reflected in Background and Concept & inspiration. JG66 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * OK great. I don't have an opinion against anything else you suggested. I just didn't want to research this and then have any additions removed on the accusation that I was trying to diminish the Beatles' importance. Also, when one is summarizing what was happening around the Beatles in late '66, it's really hard not to mention the Beach Boys.
 * These are the only glossed-over points on that subject I'd like to see addressed. They're central to Pepper and only relate peripherally to the BBs:
 * McCartney's bass lines were a consequence of listening to Pet Sounds—supported by McCartney on innumerable occasions (not mentioned at all, seriously?? the bass in "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lovely Rita" and "Getting Better" have got to be some of the definitive lines of his career)
 * Pepper concluded the Beatles–Beach Boys cycle—referenced in every single piece of literature (and other media) that mentions the two bands together (there's only a small touch of this in the article -- one reference to Rubber Soul and nothing about Smile -- I would copy the last two sentences of Cultural impact of the Beatles -- plus something close to this -- and why not address the rumors that Smile influenced Pepper as on Collapse of Smile?? No one can honestly say that tidbit is more relevant to Smile than it is to Pepper)
 * The Beatles felt threatened by the Beach Boys circa "Good Vibrations"—supported by Martin on numerous occasions and by Harrison in Anthology, whereas McCartney appears to have only stated that he didn't enjoy GV as much as Pet Sounds (details about the song are relegated to a single footnote -- AND YET Freak Out! is mentioned in the body even though no Beatle is on record saying anything about the album -- WTF? I would just add comments from Gould, McCartney, Martin, and Harrison into the body, as well as an acknowledgement that the single had an immense cultural influence that the Beatles could not have escaped [per Womack])
 * I don't believe the negligence of Pet Sounds in Beatles-centric media is a sufficient argument against including such inoffensively small details. "Good Vibrations" was a big deal -- yeah, so was other music at the time. I wasn't even aware that the Beatles were fans of Incredible String Band. But Incredible String Band didn't record the most lauded album ever made -- the Beach Boys did (if you believe AcclaimedMusic) -- and that album was a cited influence on Pepper, the other "greatest album ever made". Certainly the musical, personal, and cultural relationships between those two groups all deserve a fair bit of investigation. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Beatles felt threatened by the Beach Boys circa "Good Vibrations"—supported by Martin on numerous occasions and by Harrison in Anthology, whereas McCartney appears to have only stated that he didn't enjoy GV as much as Pet Sounds (details about the song are relegated to a single footnote -- AND YET Freak Out! is mentioned in the body even though no Beatle is on record saying anything about the album -- WTF? I would just add comments from Gould, McCartney, Martin, and Harrison into the body, as well as an acknowledgement that the single had an immense cultural influence that the Beatles could not have escaped [per Womack])
 * I don't believe the negligence of Pet Sounds in Beatles-centric media is a sufficient argument against including such inoffensively small details. "Good Vibrations" was a big deal -- yeah, so was other music at the time. I wasn't even aware that the Beatles were fans of Incredible String Band. But Incredible String Band didn't record the most lauded album ever made -- the Beach Boys did (if you believe AcclaimedMusic) -- and that album was a cited influence on Pepper, the other "greatest album ever made". Certainly the musical, personal, and cultural relationships between those two groups all deserve a fair bit of investigation. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you only have eyes for the Beach Boys. Above, and in the changes you just made to the article, you've failed to take into account my points about the Beatles drawing from a far wider pool of inspiration than music alone, and about George Martin presuming to be qualified speak on all things Beatles.
 * "The Beatles felt threatened by the Beach Boys circa 'Good Vibrations'" ... Threatened? That's a mighty strong word – bugger George Martin's assertions, when did George Harrison or any Beatle ever say they were "threatened" by "Good Vibrations"? From memory, in Anthology, Harrison says something like "Oh, and there was that record Pet Sounds ... We seemed to be competing with that, for some reason."
 * Regarding what you say about "the negligence of Pet Sounds in Beatles-centric media", well, it does have bearing on the coverage afforded the Beach Boys and anyone else. That's in keeping with WP:WEIGHT's statement that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." As mentioned above, the Beatles also drew inspiration from, and sought to capture, the late 1966 vogue for fin de siècle and early 20th century art and fashion, which was introduced by an exhibition of Aubrey Bearsley's work in London in the summer of 1966. (And as mentioned also, this and other sources of inspiration simply weren't on Martin's radar at all.) That cultural and historical aspect was a huge part of the vision behind Sgt. Pepper, particularly its presentation and packaging, which in turn was what helped give the album its cross-generational appeal, and drew intellectuals to write such long and elaborate treatises on the album. That's not apparent in a lot of the American-authored literature and certainly not in the sources focusing on recording practice and music for music's sake.
 * You refer to Cultural impact of the Beatles, which surprises me. Because, that section is an utter embarrassment, and one that I'd have thought you'd not want to flag here – in that you've completely Brian Wilson-ified that article.
 * You were too quick off the mark regarding my removal of mention of the bass lines on Pet Sounds. (This thing is a work in progress.) I had thought to include that detail under "Recording and production", within the discussion of "Preferring to overdub his bass part last, McCartney tended to play other instruments when recording a song's backing track"; either there or under "With a Little Help ..." in the Songs section. This is partly because "harmonic structures" would seem to imply bass lines; partly to lessen that longstanding effect whereby Pet Sounds and Freak Out! seemed to be the only sources of musical inspiration on Pepper; and also because, unless I'm mistaken, in Babiuk p. 197, McCartney does not mention the bass lines on Pet Sounds.
 * "why not address the rumors that Smile influenced Pepper as on Collapse of Smile?? No one can honestly say that tidbit is more relevant to Smile than it is to Pepper." Of course, it's more relevant to Smile than to Pepper!! As that section makes abundantly clear, Wilson was haunted by his need to compete with the Beatles and by how others viewed him vs the Beatles. Not only that but the whole issue of the Beatles' allegedly hearing Smile tapes is obviously nullified by the fact that it was said to have happened at an LA studio where the tapes were housed from February 1967 onwards. No Beatle was in the US between 31 August 1966 and early April '67 – pretty much their every move, certainly through airports, is tracked by sources such as Miles' Beatles Diary and John Winn's two books. The period is also covered in detail in memoirs by Peter Brown, Tony Barrow and Mal Evans; Neil Aspinall was never shy in offering his recollections on the Beatles' activities either, in The Beatles Anthology and interviews in Mojo and the like. During their time in LA in late August '66 – if that's said to be when two or more Beatles might've heard portions of Smile (rather than at Steiner's studio, in early '67) – the Beatles resolutely holed up in their rented pad in Beverly Hills, partly out concerns for their safety post-"Jesus"; all their musician friends visited them at the house, so there were none of the visits to, say, the Byrds' recording sessions or sites along Sunset Strip that had happened during their August 1965 stay. This, again, is a matter of record. Besides, given how unreserved McCartney has been in highlighting Wilson as an influence/inspiration – which, it has to be said, is so typical of the Beatles in acknowledging their influences during the 1960s – it's inconceivable that he wouldn't have discussed going to a studio and hearing parts of Smile (or that two of his bandmates had). I can't believe we're even discussing this as an item for inclusion in this article.

That said, I do think some of the additions you've just made are pretty good. But your focus, as in every Wikipedia article from what I've seen, is clearly governed by wanting to see the Brian Wilson aspect hammered home. This is an article about a Beatles album. It's not an album I happen to like, but that's neither here nor there: my focus is on ensuring that it reflects as much as possible all the notable points from the wide-ranging coverage given to Sgt. Pepper, which necessarily means that one aspect may appear under-represented to someone who's only able to view the subject in a certain context. JG66 (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Melody Maker poll
Those polled, i.e. purveyors and promoters of new music, (perhaps naturally) disliked the enduring popularity of older music, but declaring SPLHCB (and the others records in the list) as the worst ever made is clearly an ironic statement. John Robb gives the game away by offering the Beatles’ moustaches as reason to dislike the record. Furthermore, implied in Mark Sutherland’s comment “It's time to make way for great new music" is the (apparently unwelcome to him) acknowledgement that there is also great, old music. However, these statements from the source are not present the article, so there is a significant danger that the WP reader will miss the irony .—Aquegg (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From memory, this MM poll result, some derisive comments from the Guardian music blog and from Keith Richards' autobiography, and from another poll that ridiculed the likes of Pepper, Nevermind, Pet Sounds, Dark Side of the Moon, OK Computer (basically, works most commonly cited as "best albums of all time") were all added at around the same, with the result that the section became overwhelmingly biased towards negative assessment of the Beatles' album. I think the section's better now in this regard – which it had to be, because there should be some harmony between the impression given by the reviewer ratings box and the prose. I'm wondering, though, if it might be better to remove the 1998 MM poll altogether and add more from John Harris' 2007 piece. He offers some reasons for Pepper's downfall, one of which is the extent to which the album is a totem for the 1960s and the baby-boomer generation, and therefore an easy target for each new generation to ridicule. This issue, of the album being stuck in time, is touched on by Marcus' and Christgau's comments, but it might be better to cut some of that personal insight and let Harris provide the general picture.
 * It's difficult to juggle points between this section and the various subsections under Influence and legacy, so there's still more work to do. It's the (considerable) influence/legacy-related achievements – regarding development of pop music; 1960s counterculture; cultural legitimisation of pop music; recording practice – that brought about Lester Bangs' complaints, and Marcus' to some degree. It's almost as if Retrospective appraisal needs to follow Influence and legacy. (It shouldn't, but ...) JG66 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please go ahead as you suggest: MM out, more Harris, would be a significant improvement.—Aquegg (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

Mr. Kite poster
The image of the poster that inspired Being for the benefit of Mr. Kite is awful. It purports to be an original copy of the poster but it clearly isn't. If you look at the original that Lennon used here it is wider and shorter than the one we're using and not a dirty brown colour like that one. The one that we're using was probably taken from the the same source as the ones that are for sale on Amazon here. Of course Lennon had an original and it is just possible that others may have survived, but they would be exactly the same size - not a completely different shape. Someone has obviously had a go at aging that one artificially and has overdone it. If you look at earlier downloads of that file they are not brown and folded like that one. If we are going to use one of those I would suggest that we should use the 24 April 2015 version, crop it a little and label it as a reproduction. Or perhaps we should just use the other one available on Amazon here which is much more like the original. As it is a reproduction of artwork that is out of copyright, I would presume it can't be copyrighted itself. Richerman (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Escalator Over the Hill
While Pepper's influence is of course far reaching and most individual examples of albums that bear that inspiration are not notable enough to mention, would it be mentioning its influence on Escalator Over the Hill?, an avant-garde jazz opus known for being Carla Bley's jazz "response" to Sgt Pepper. Pepper's influence on later musical developments is covered well in the article but this feels like a good example of the jazz world taking notice, as its notable enough for the Guardian to recognise Bley hearing Sgt Pepper and taking influence from it as a key event in jazz history (see this 'A history of jazz' feature). Other Pepper-Escalator sources:,  and word of it being Bley's main influence here, and mention if it as an influence on her here, where she quotes a friend saying how popular the album was with jazz artists. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd think a mention of its influence on jazz generally and, more specifically, on Bley's Escalator would be very welcome. A comment in that New Yorker piece – about a contemporary saying "Jazz is dead. We don't listen to jazz anymore." – reminds me of what Ned Rorem said in one of his appreciations of the Beatles over 1967–68, although he was talking about his fellow composers in the classical music scene. As mentioned in this article, one of the effects of Pepper was to encourage jazz critique-style writing about rock in mainstream US publications, and in turn, jazz magazines began to cover rock. So a brief discussion of the album's influence on contemporary jazz musicians would be great. Thanks for that. JG66 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence about Bley which I hope is okay. I may have to do some more fishing around to see Pepper discussed in the larger context of its influence on contemporary jazz.--19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

History of different cover art?
Hello. Nothing in the article mentioned the (at least) different album cover art. Similar to the "original", these have slight, but numerous differences. Just as an example, in both the boys are not all standing behind the bass drum. The matrix number on the one I have is...≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlee987 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rework Background section; additions to Recording history and Release
Back in 2018 (and a couple of times before then, I'm sure), I mentioned how the Background section fails to fully serve its purpose and instead spends too long discussing the band's final tours. The advances made with Revolver are mentioned under Recording and production, but that album's experimentation should really be introduced from the start, because the band's performing and recording careers instantly became divorced from one another, and that informs the final tours. Background might also be the place to mention Lennon's emotional slide.

In Many Years from Now, the boxed quote we currently include – "We really hated that fucking four little mop-top approach", etc – actually leads straight into McCartney talking about the reason behind the album's alter ego concept, or rather the quote is part of the reason. I think Background needs to cover comments the Beatles made at this time when they variously refer to the band as a separate entity from themselves ("the Beatles" instead of "we"), complain about how restrictive the Beatles image is, and state that they wouldn't be too disappointed if it did end. Steve Turner's Beatles '66 and Jon Savage's 1966 focus on this when discussing the lead-up to Sgt. Pepper. Cutting much of the detail about the tours will allow for these additions.

A year or two ago, I cut mention of the "Day in the Life" orchestral overdubbing session/happening, always intending to introduce this and other studio "events" under Recording history. It will probably amount to a new subsection within Recording and production – perhaps "Studio ambience and happenings" or something. This can include mention of larva lamps, the "clubhouse" aspect mentioned by Harrison or Starr, decorating the studio with Indian rugs for the main "Within You Without You" session, plans for a TV film based on the songs, etc.

Under Release, we really should mention the launch party at Epstein's house, particularly as it appears to have been an industry first, at least according to some of the reports at the time.

I'd like to start the suggested reworking of the Background and introducing the new information quite soon. I'll most likely give priority to the second-half restructure, outlined in the previous thread. These are all issues I've flagged here for years, so I hope I'm not wrong in taking the lack of opposition in the past as an okay to (finally) proceed. JG66 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Restructure for second half of article
Further to comment I made at the end of Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 6, and particularly the discussion with at Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 8 – at the latter, editors might want to dive to "A lot to digest there ... Working backwards (sort of)", about midway down the page – I'm planning to swap sections around towards the end of this article. This is to ensure that when readers come to the Retrospective appraisal section, they're fully aware of the contemporaneous cultural impact that informed and still informs the album's critical standing in the years and decades after its release.

It's difficult to say with certainty how this will go. I'm thinking the order will probably be (using the current section and subsection titles):
 * 7. Contemporary critical reception
 * 8. Influence and legacy
 * 8.1. Contemporary youth and counterculture
 * 8.2. Cultural legitimisation of popular music
 * 8.3. Development of popular music
 * 8.4. Studio as instrument
 * 8.5. Graphic design


 * 9. Retrospective appraisal
 * 10. Continued interest and recognition

Within all that, it could well be that Studio as instrument will be trimmed further and subsumed into Development of popular music. On the other hand, there's more to add there on imitative works, so who knows. Schaffner has a page or two on the latter, with some of the more embarrassing examples; Jim Irvin details the change in UK singles that resulted from Pepper – in the restructure, these new points, on top of what's already there, will provide context for Bangs' contention as well as Erlewine's "After Sgt. Pepper ... rock and pop bands could try anything, for better or worse." Similarly, points discussed under Contemporary youth and counterculture and Cultural legitimisation of popular music all prepare the reader for comments from music critics: Marcus, Christgau, Frith, Harris, McCormick and Chris Jones.

I appreciate it's probably highly unusual to see contemporary and retrospective critical reception split up and estranged from each another like this. I'm now convinced it's the only way to present the information effectively because, consistent with every reliable source, Sgt. Pepper's influence was so immediate, so profound and so wide-ranging – which, quite naturally, is reflected in retrospective assessments of the album.

Btw, the linked discussion between BLZ and myself branched off from the RfC now archived at Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 9. It sits in Archive 8, which is misleading. JG66 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. What you said about the immediacy and breadth of Sgt. Pepper's impact is absolutely correct and justifies the proposed structure. The album rewrote cultural standards for pop music virtually overnight, whereas critics have had 50+ years to ebb and flow on the question of whether it holds up, with much of the critical reflection tied up in the issue of the album's influence. A split of contemporary/retrospective critical receptions like this, with an influence section wedged between them, is only unusual insofar as Sgt. Pepper itself is virtually unique in its towering historical significance and merits such an expansive treatment. —BLZ · talk 03:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks BLZ. And very nicely put, may I say. JG66 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

2020 Rolling Stone update
Since the 2020 Rolling Stone top 500 albums update just came out, and Sgt. Pepper is now at 24th place, not 1st, wouldn't it be somewhat misleading to keep the tidbit about it being ranked the #1 album in the 2003 edition in the page? Stavd3 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. It's not like RS said "we made a mistake" - just that they've re-evaluated the list with 17 more years of albums. Times change but history is still history. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lead is meant to summarise content that appears in the main body, so it makes sense to try to capture the most notable points. But with regard to Sgt. Pepper's rankings on best-album-of-all-time lists, it's not as if the Rolling Stone 2020 list is the most notable thing, from this album's point of view – the most notable thing is that Pepper has consistently appeared towards the top of such lists since the 1970s, and that it has topped several of them. In fact, as the lead currently stands, we're probably giving too much attention to one particular publication and overlooking the general picture. JG66 (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now reworded and expanded the point in the lead. JG66 (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

~Release date
Why follow Wiener's view that is was released (that is, people could buy it) on the 26th of May, when since 1967 every book that's been written on the Beatles, including Mark Lewisohn's seminal works, says it was 1 June? Radio London broadcast the entire album before its official release, I think this was on the 26th, and this may be Wiener's reason to antedate its official release date, but it's equally possible - in fact quite likely - that advance copies were distributed for radio stations to play to warm the public to the new release, with Radio London the first to actually do so on May 26th. If there's no compelling evidence to keep the 26th, then I'd suggest to reinstate the 1 June date. 2A02:A457:CF53:1:CD90:CE9D:A86F:9F32 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The original Sgt Pepper
I'm not sure if this has been raised before here, but in this article it is claimed that the "Sgt Pepper" after whom the album was named was "a straitlaced, no-nonsense Ontario Provincial Police officer from Aurora named Sgt. Randall Pepper, who forged an unlikely friendship with the band while running their security detail during a 24-hour visit to Toronto in 1966.... [and] the OPP patch on McCartney's album cover outfit came from one of Pepper's officers, who handed it to the band before they got on a plane to leave Toronto in 1966." Is this sufficiently authoritative, and non-trivial, to be worth mentioning in the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems worthy of mention, sure - and there are a number of other legitimate publications which make the same connection, so go for it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's trivial, personally, but more importantly it's pretty borderline. The band spent 24 hours in Toronto, at most, and on that tour of all tours, they were very insular – Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans would have dealt with a local security detail if anyone did. I'll check in Steve Turner's book Beatles '66, which covers every week of 1966 in detail, just to see whether there's any mention of the Beatles befriending any of the Toronto cops. Yes, the police officer was a sergeant and his name was Pepper, but did that really register with the Beatles? ... As Lennon and Harrison later said, everyone makes up a Beatles story or finds significance in some minor event that wasn't there. McCartney's story on the song/album title was that he misheard Evans saying "salt and pepper" on the plane back from Kenya (or something like that).
 * Perhaps it might be worth including at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: 50th Anniversary Edition, which I've always meant to continue expanding. The Preview and promotion section mentions a couple of other things inspired or encouraged by the fuss around the album's 50th anniversary. So maybe this point could be added there. JG66 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems to be at most a theory (unless McCartney ever said anything about it). The OPP patch is mildly significant as an OPP officer did gift McCartney one. The brief mention in the article of the patch could include a sourced suggestion that Sgt. Pepper (OPP) was the inspiration for the title, but it really is trivial and in such a large article, more stuff is not what's needed.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems that plausible and reliably-reported claims about the origin of the album name are of some interest to readers, and are worth mentioning in this article. Something like: "The family of former Ontario Provincial Police officer, Sgt Randall Pepper, have claimed that he helped provide security for the group's 1966 visit to Toronto, and that his name helped inspire the album title."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - well expressed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

front cover
is it possible at all to make a list of ALL personalities matched on there? I do make out (among others) additionally: Karl Marx, Aleister Crowley and some more of fringe (so to say) culture. How about shedding light on rumors in order to silent the same? Hanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Check out List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. — Mudwater (Talk) 06:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Evans
In the background section one para starts “In November, during his and Evans' return flight from Kenya, McCartney had an idea …”  There is no explanation in the article prior to this of who Evans is. Boscaswell  talk  06:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. JG66 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)