The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

THE REVIEW

I remember that spring of 1996 very well. I had read many reviews, both old and new, about this album. Never (neither before nor after) have I felt such emotion putting an album in the CD player.

At first listen, I was a bit disappointed. I realized that the absolute masterpieces (those songs that enchant you at first listen and make you understand they come from another world) were only three: for me, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "She's Leaving Home," "A Day in the Life." I didn't stop there and continued to listen to it endlessly, reading all the lyrics and continuously comparing it with "Revolver." Today, after many years, readings, and listens, I can give a balanced opinion. I won’t talk much about the individual songs, but I will say a few things that I don't think are known to everyone.

It's true, the masterpieces present in "Revolver" outnumber: "Eleanor Rigby"; "I'm Only Sleeping"; "For No One"; "Here, There and Everywhere"; "Tomorrow never knows," etc. But it's also true that the (pleasant) downfalls of "Revolver" aren't there. For me, "Pepper" is one of the most homogeneous albums ever listened to.

"Pepper" is not a concept album (Lennon said about this: "My Kite has nothing to do with the sergeant and his band"). "Pepper" is rather, at least in intention, a "concert album". The Beatles had decided to be done with concerts in August 1966, so they decided to "bring people to the concert." The idea is splendid, and as John Robertson says in his autobiography of Lennon, people were fascinated by it, perhaps more than by the songs themselves. Too bad that the applause disappears after the first song and reappears at the penultimate one. Ringo considered it a flaw: "The central idea went right out the window." Also, the fact of introducing only one fictitious character ("Billy Shears") and not the other three, is another (forgivable) flaw of the album. Applause throughout the album, and four fictitious characters would have made it more curious.

Lennon tried to tear it down in the 70s, perhaps due to a poorly concealed jealousy, because many critics, in that decade, considered it as "an idea and a triumph of McCartney's lively imagination." Here are his words: ""Pepper" goes nowhere, although it was a hugely important moment for the group. Maybe this is better, but I continue to prefer the music of the "White", because that's where I'm truly myself." Lennon was exaggerating, as usual. Indeed, reading lyrics like "I'm so Tired" and "Yer Blues," there's John laying bare as never before. But it's equally wrong to think that Lennon doesn't talk about himself in "Pepper." In "Good Morning, Good Morning" (which he inexplicably considered "rubbish") there's one of the most ruthless and sincere portraits of his desperate and bored rockstar life ("Nothing to do to save this life"). And then "Getting Better," although brought to the studio by McCartney, is an autobiographical text by Lennon, who didn't just contribute with the chorus of "It can't get no worse."

There's one thing that makes this album more "beautiful" than others. It's the John-Paul collaboration, back as it was in the beginning. It's not true, as is usually written, that the Beatles' quarrels began during the "White" sessions. The first quarrels began in "Rubber Soul" and during the "Revolver" sessions, Paul slammed the door, telling everyone to get lost. During this period, John was very serene. George Martin recalls never having seen him so happy and collaborative, even writing lyrics for his friend-rival. John even allowed Paul to "mess" "A Day in the Life" with a "bridge" that is almost a song. Paul returned the favor by giving John the idea of the orchestra. Perhaps if Lennon had been jealous of his piece, the orchestra would have remained in Paul's head, and today that song wouldn't be as gigantic as it is.

It's true, "Pepper" is an overly deified album. All subsequent Author’s Pop, at least as far as I'm concerned, is much more a child of "Revolver" than of this album. But it is equally evident that this album managed to and manages to touch people's hearts better than a more "reflective and at times gloomy" album like "Revolver". The merit (and I would say the miracle) of "Pepper" is being easy without ever falling into the commercial. Even "Revolver" is a pop album (although this definition is sometimes quite superficial), but "Pepper" is more "popular," and I say "popular" in the highest sense of the term. It manages to satisfy refined tastes, but also those who want to listen to good music to distract themselves. Even music for distraction has its dignity.

As someone wrote: "Revolver beats Pepper in technique. Pepper beats Revolver in spirit."