Revolver is the Beatles' most revolutionary album*

Sgt Pepper gets all the praise as 'revolutionary', but why?

Revolver was the record that introduced ADT, variable tape speed, tape loops, chamber musicians, backwards guitar, Indian music and general studio trickery. All Sgt Pepper did was take what had been achieved on Revolver and refined it a bit further. But Pepper has that crazy cover right? Well look at Revolver's cover:



Pretty damn trippy if you ask me, just lacking in color but why is that relevant?

 

i think pepper gets the extra praise because it was in the right place at the right time.
it captured the imagination of a large slice of the western world's population at a big changing point in world dynamics.
after that it got carried along by media as the flagship of rock albums.
to my memory pepper was always voted the number one album in just about any poll i ever looked at up to the mid eighties at least, and that has a big impact on the psyche.
then at a certain point people rebel against this media and pepper drops a ton on the polls .... then later again a balance starts to show.

they are both great albums, from a great band

 

Is all steps. You can't take one without the other.
Pepper was revolutionary because of Revolver which was revolutionary because of Rubber Soul.

But before Revolver, the Beatles had about 100 songs. All of them (non-covers) except for maybe 2 were straight love songs (Nowhere Man and maybe There's a Place - but it is still kind of).
The 16 songs that came next with Revolver and Paperback Writer/Rain, 13 were not straight love songs (I only count 3 - Here/There/Everywhere, Love You To and For No One - Got To Get You Into My Life is disguised).

That is a complete 180 degree change and overnight. Nothing gradual. That is revolutionary.

But if Revolver/PPW/Rain opened the door, Pepper,SFF/Penny Lane blew it away.

 

Revolver has done quite nicely lately. I think Revolver is maybe seen as just a collection of 14 songs like their previous albums, where Sgt. Peppers at least seems to have some type of theme, also some songs run together.

 

But musically speaking, Revolver is the biggest leap they ever did. Sgt Pepper might be a bit better but it's like 10% better, while Revolver is 500% better than Rubber Soul.

 

It's amazing to think that in a span of 18 months, they released 3 revolutionary albums(Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper) and the public just took it for granted. Even the most acknowledged 'post 1990s best band in the world' Radiohead never pulled of a feat like that. They had 2 revolutionary albums(OK Computer & Kid A), in a span of 3 years.

 

I place almost as much importance on the overall cover and visual presentation of Pepper as I do on the music. That said, let's play a game ...if Revolver housed the music of Sgt. Pepper and vice versa, would the success/significance of of either album have been different ??

 

I don’t know if it is more revolutionary, but I’d pick Revolver over Peppers any time. One of my favorite albums of all time, I remember showing it to my “indie” friend and he thought it was “okay, organic” lol.

 

3 revolutionary albums PLUS Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out, Paperback Writer/Rain, and Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane.
47 total songs in about 18 months without only half a dozen or so I can do without.

That is insane.

 

Sgt. Pepper was the first Beatles album that had the same track order, content, and title in the UK and in the US - and probably every place elsewhere, internationally - so there could be a consensus on how great an album it was at the exact moment it came out.

It was also preceded by the groundbreaking single, and there was no Beatles road show tour in 1967 to distract from the music. The Beatles had gone underground, and SP was what they emerged with.

 

Revolver was revolutionary. Pepper was just a copy of Pet Sounds.

 

No gatefold. And no cutouts.

Gotta have my cutouts.

 

Ummmmmmmmm
No

 

Revolver was preceded by a groundbreaking single(Paperback Writer/Rain) and they had taken a big hiatus after 1965. It's just Revolver didn't have the big hype machine that Pepper did.

 

Rubber Soul elevated and mastered the 60's pop album. Revolver blew its mind out (in a car), and Sgt. Peppers made you notice that the lights have changed.

 

The one two punch of Meet The Beatles and The Beatles Second Album...plus the very early Capitol singles that came out...are probably as revolutionary as Revolver. The Beatles coming to America was revolutionary. Sgt. Peppers grabbed an entire culture and hit right at the beginning of the Summer of Love. I'd rank Eight Miles High by the Byrds and I Can See For Miles And Miles by the Who right up there with TNK. By 1966, there were lots of new experimental songs and the youth culture was really kicking in. Revolver, yes, either led the way...or was right in tune with the new sounds exploding across the globe. Revolver set it up. Sgt. Peppers knocked it out of the ballpark. A Day In A Life encapsulate this. As does its ending.

 

A think people forget how, at least in the US, SPLHCB was released roughly coinciding with people switching to stereo listening. The album wowed people with all of its effects, even if the actual songwriting wasn't quite up to the level established by Revolver. It provided a "trip" for people already on one in a way Revolver didn't. The effects, segues ... it all fit together on SPCHCB as a piece, a whole, in way Revolver didn't. And I'm not talking any 'concept' or 'theme' with Pepper, that's kind of a canard, but rather just the the effect of the sound, if not the lyrics.

 

To be fair though, it's hard to always see things as they're happening. It's a lot easier to look back and go 'holy crap, that was an incredible run of a year and a half'. I kind of look at their whole career like that, though. It was non-stop progression (or close to non-stop).

 

First off, Pepper was not The Beatles.
It was Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Of course it was The Beatles but the intended experience is to listen to the run of the album as a show.
It doesn't matter if each song doesn't feel like a show, the point is regardless of the type of song, they aren't being performed by The Beatles but by Pepper.
Secondly, Revolver is track for track a better album but not as an album vibe.
There's still a slight amount of mop top Beatles sound to a few tracks on Revolver. Not really an early Beatlemania sound but at least a folky RS or BFS sound.
Pepper sounds fresh and new as a whole comparatively.
Remember, George Harrison said RS and Revolver were like part 1 and part 2.
I seldom listen to Revolver straight through but I only listen to Pepper straight through.
The only other Beatles album I listen to straight through besides Pepper are unintended albums.
U.S. Rubber Soul, Second Album and Beatles 65.
That's because Dexter IMO made those albums sound cohesive.

 

Because of everything that has come since, Sgt. Pepper is now not viewed as being so radically different and revolutionary. But it really, really was at the time and I can’t emphasise that enough - even compared to Revolution. At the time of its release Revolution was amazing - but when Sgt. Pepper was released it was mind-bogglingly different and "what the hell is this?"

You have to have been there to understand, which I guess the original poster wasn’t. And that is why, I guess, he/she is asking such a question.

 

'Sgt. Pepper's' cover is in colour and 'Revolver' is in black & white.

 

1. Giant image change (mustaches)
2. Conceptual (sort of)
3. Pretending to be other people.
4. A Day in the Life
5. Presentation

Edit. Sorry. I was explaining why Pepper gets more acclaim and got away from the question at hand.

 

In the US, the '66 single came out late May. Then Yesterday & Today had the three Lennon songs pre-released on it in June, '66 (the first 'backwards guitar solo' sees its debut release on Y&T). The Datebook magazine 'more popular than Jesus' issue hit the stands at the end of July. Revolver was released as an 11-song Captiol album on August 4. Beatles begin final tour in the US a week later that runs August 12-29.

And people are supposed to focus on the 11-song Revolver album amidst all this? Maybe there's time for that thirty or fifty years later, with the 14-song album now serving as the definitive artifact. It took twenty years for the album to be properly re-released in the US.

Sgt. Pepper was free and clear of all that hoopla. All those constraints, and the 'mania. It was released as the Beatles wanted it and hit the airwaves flying. Thus, it got its day in the sun and was fully considered when it came out.

 

Because Revolver is a perfect pop album.

 

Revolver didn't have that groovy inner sleeve, no lyrics printed on the rear, no full colour gatefold and absolutely zero shiny suits plus everyone had to wait longer for this album than previous Beatles albums and therein lies the difference, Sgt Pepper's was just way more psychedelic!
Anyways, I was long under the impression that Sgt Pepper's simply took everyone by surprise...