Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and the Debate over Authenticity
Another paper written while working with Dr. Kimsey at DePaul University.
Rock music fans have long insisted their favorite artists live up to an incredibly high set of standards (if not morals). The primary demand that fans have on their music is that the music or the artist is “authentic”. Keir Keightley states that. “Authenticity can be thought of as the compass that orients rock culture in its navigation of the mainstream” (131). It is this very demand that splits fans and critics opinions of the Beatles 1967 album, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band: some declare that the Beatles artistic statement is an authentic extension of their creativity (Keightley refers to this as the Modernist viewpoint), while others declare that the Beatles had lost their way in a boring world of business decisions, drugs and Eastern spirituality and had ceased to be in touch with their fans (or the Romantic viewpoint) (136).
Ben MacIntyre, in his article, “The Gospel of Lovely Rita”, makes the argument that Sgt. Pepper’s is the most important record of all time because of “its astonishing artistic breadth”. It is because of the risks the Beatles took musically and creatively that MacIntyre finds the most important. Since they were no longer touring, the band could be free to not only musically take steps in new directions, but completely reinvent their personas as well. He states, “As Shakespeare well knew, disguise offers freedom: unshackled from the constraints of performance, the band embraced an astonishing array of influences, and drugs”.
Another aspect of Sgt. Pepper that MacIntyre believes adds credibility to the project is its “quintessential Britishness”. He goes onto describe how the “combination of sentimentality, nostalgia and raw irony was, and remains, an expression of a particular sort of English cultural identity” and he points to examples of the holes in Blackburn, Lancashire and the English Army winning the war in “A Day in the Life”.
Mark Hertsgaard agrees with MacIntyre that Sgt. Pepper is a serious piece of art in the Modernist sense of authenticity in his piece, “We All Want to Change the World”, by describing the impact of drugs, specifically, LSD on the Beatles. He calls the album a work of “breathtaking genius, widely recognized as the most impressive achievement in popular music for many years” (196-7). He also describes the impact of the album on a deeper level of communication than a direct, “From Me to You”, from the band to the audience. He uses quotes from Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsberg to illustrate the point that the album had a direct communication to those who were already “in” on the ideas they were writing about; those who could pick up on the subtle clues encoded in their music (199).
In his book, Revolution in the Head, Ian MacDonald further illustrates the point that Sgt. Pepper was an album that was filled with lyrical inspirations and ideas that would be lost on the average listener. In “Good Morning, Good Morning” for example, John Lennon was inspired to write the song based on an “irritating” Kellogg’s Cornflakes commercial and a British sitcom, Meet the Wife (207). This is paralleled by John’s inspiration for writing the lyrics to “Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite” which according to MacDonald was based on a circus poster hanging in John’s house (210) and also by “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” which was based on a picture drawn at school by a young Julian Lennon (132). Again, these are very real things to the composers, but the general audience would not be able to identify with the inspiration.
According to MacDonald, John Lennon was not the only Beatle writing songs based on his own British existence, but Paul McCartney and George Harrison also wrote this into their music, but rather from a different perspective. The writing of “Getting Better” started out as a private joke within their circle of friends and Paul finished the lyric with John later on (213). “Within You, Without You” also is directed at a particular group of people who are “in” on the idea already with its “air of superiority and sanctimonious finger wagging” at those who are not in on the groovy new way to look at the world (215).
While there are those like MacIntyre, Hertsgaard and MacDonald who praise the authentic modernist approach of Sgt. Pepper, there are just as many critics of the album who preferred earlier Beatle albums that were created according to the romantic approach to authenticity. Perhaps no critic is more to the point than Chicago rock journalist Jim DeRogatis. In his essay, “Idle Worship”, DeRogatis describes the album as a soundtrack to a time and place and that the album does not stand the test of time for those who were not present. One of the first points he makes is in reference to the idea of a band behind a band. He states, “It's been said that the Fabs adopted the role of a different group to free themselves from the expectations of making ‘Beatles music,’ but why they chose such a sentimental, old-fashioned, out-of-date ensemble remains a mystery. It certainly wasn't to parody Sgt. Pepper's combo, because the title track is a warm and loving homage in the form of a plodding rocker completely lacking in subtlety” (DeRogatis).
DeRogatis also takes aim at the idea of superiority of viewpoint made by the Beatles on the album, and that perhaps this album is directed only at a particular audience who is already “in” on the idea. He addresses the mentality of that group by stating, “This is the very definition of Baby Boomer myopia: ‘I'm the center of the universe, bub. I'm in charge now, and even when I'm wrong, I'm right!’” (DeRogatis).
Ian Shoales thinks that by 1967 the Beatles weren’t capable of writing songs that directly related to the masses. He states in I Gotta Go: the Commentary or Ian Shoales that “the Beatles started out as a bunch of goofball kids, until money changed them. Lawyers, accountants, agents, managers, roadies, T-shirt makers, demographics, drugs and ambition have changed rock forever” (125). He goes on to blame the Beatles for killing the rock star as a larger than life personality, citing Sgt. Pepper as the precise moment it happened (126).
DeRogatis and Shoales both wrote after the rock community had split into the two main “authenticity camps” of modern and romantic that we have today; and in fact, DeRogatis might agree with Shoales that Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles are the ones that caused that schism in the first place. One writer who wrote during the 1960’s and grew up with the Beatles, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times, was there when the rock community split apart (Keightley, 137).
In his review of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Goldstein wrote that the Beatles were too far out of touch with their audience by stating, “The Beatles sing ’we’ll scrimp and save’ with utter reverence. It is a strange fairy tale, oddly sad because it is so far from the composers’ reality” (99). It is not only the lyrics however that Goldstein takes offense at, he declares, “for the first time, the Beatles have given us an album of special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent” (99). All the studio mastery wasn’t original, but a compilation of Jefferson Airplane, the Beach Boys and the Who (99). Goldstein believes the Beatles have lost it, he praised their earlier work, but just does not understand why they took this turn (98).
Ultimately the authenticity debate makes Sgt. Pepper a very difficult album to judge, even with 40 years of hindsight. Keightley lists the following as being descriptive of modern authenticity: experimentation, progress, avant garde, elitism, classical art sounds, radical style change, irony, ‘recorded-ness’ and celebrating technology (137). All of these phrases certainly describe what Sgt. Pepper was in 1967.
Rock journalists are also rock fans, so it maybe difficult to be objective when reviewing records. As Keightley states, “Many rock fans will reject those performers or genres who highlight Modernist authenticity as being somehow ‘artificial’, while other fans might dismiss Romantic rock as being simplistic or compromised by its populism. Rock’s dual versions of authenticity may thus contribute to the formation of diverging scenes, communities, and taste cultures within (emphasis author’s) rock” (137). Sgt. Pepper was a watershed moment in the history of rock music and is thus very polarizing.
It is obvious that MacIntyre, Hertsgaard and MacDonald favor the Modernist approach to the authenticity debate, while DeRogatis, Shoales and Goldstein favor the Romantic style. There is no right or wrong way to view music and there is not a “correct” opinion of Sgt. Pepper. Furthermore, there is no reason for the artist or the fan to limit themselves to one side of the debate. The Beatles had made music in the Romantic fashion (of which Goldstein, DeRogatis and Shoales had praised), they then made music in a Modernist approach with “Strawberry Fields Forever” through Magical Mystery Tour, and then returned to a Romantic style with The White Album through Abbey Road.
It is also important to note that is acceptable to merge those styles within one piece of work as well – Keightley mentions Bob Dylan’s folk music (Romantic) with artistic lyrics (Modernist) and also the Smiths mix of gender-bending vocals (Modernist) and natural sounding guitars (Romantic)(138). While none of the writers cited in this paper make an explicit declaration of this, the Beatles did manage to accomplish this on Sgt. Pepper. Lost amid the orchestras, horns, tape loops and the imaginary band are stories of everyday life, most notably in the Paul McCartney compositions. While “Fixing a Hole” turned into something far grander, it was inspired by the composer needing to fix a hole in the roof of his cottage because it was leaking water (MacDonald, 208). The other notable examples include the tale of starting of a day, “Woke up / Got out of bed / Dragged a comb across my head” (“A Day in the Life”) and a discussion that could be had between any young man and his wife (“When I’m Sixty-Four”). These were not moments that you had to be rich, famous or “turned on” to be able to relate to: these were scenes from everyday life for most Brits if not for the masses.
Whether or not one prefers Romanticism or Modernism, most rock fans, if not all, require some form of authenticity from their favorite artists. To not be authentic is to be fake, to be dishonest and to have impure motives (Keightley, 131). Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is a truly polarizing album for those in both camps: it is either the most important album ever made, or simply another over-rated relic from the Summer of Love.
Works Cited
DeRogatis, Jim. “Idle worship, or revisiting the classics”. 04 July 2004. 8 Mar 2008. http://www.jimdero.com/News2004/July4SgtPeppers.htm
Goldstein, Richard. “We Still Need the Beatles, but…” Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writing on the Beatles, Their Legacy and Why They Still Matter. Ed. June Skinner Sawyers. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. 97-101.
Hertsgaard, Mark. “We All Want to Change the World: Drugs Politics and Spirituality”. A Day in the Life: The Music and Artistry of the Beatles. New York: Delacorte Press, 1995. 190-201.
Keightley, Keir. “Reconsidering Rock”. The Cambridge Companion to Rock and Pop. Ed. Simon Frith, Will Straw and John Street. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 109-142.
MacDonald, Ian. Revolution in the Head: The Beatles’ Records and the Sixties. Updated ed. London: Pimlico, 1998.
MacIntyre, Ben. “The Gospel of Lovely Rita”. The Times 25 May 2007: 15. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. DePaul University, 23 Feb 2008 < http://www.lib.depaul.edu/CheckURL.asp?address=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=7EH1068771740&site=ehost-live&scope=site>
Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Perf. The Beatles. CD. Parlophone / Apple Records, 1967.
Shoales, Ian. “Rock Music Today”. I Gotta Go: The Commentary of Ian Shoales. New York: Perigee, 1985. 125-127.