Which is the most accomplished, successful, between Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road?

In my opinion Abbey Road is more complete, more adult, more solid.

That album tackled so many musical aspects that Abbey Road doesn't even come close to emulating.

If you're going for a more straight forward album then Abbey Road.

For me Sgt. Pepper's is like the big bang for everything prog. The Beatles tackled brilliant songwriting and then set off to make every other aspect of the album completely unique and oriignal and given their unlimited budget at this point were successful in pulling it off.

Sgt Pepper's all the way, however that doesn't mean Abbey Road is bad by any means. Abbey Road simply returned to the basics. For me mature isn't better. For me unbridled creativity steals the show everytime especially when the underlying basics of excellent song structures aren't compromised.

 

Both are absolute masterpieces. It's a struggle between titans. 

I agre with you that Sgt Pepper is most accomplished: Pepper's songs have a greater variety of style:

simphonic (She's Leaving Home), psychedelic orchestral (Mr Kite), indian music (Within You), swing

(64). And Pepper contains the absolute peak of the Beatles: A Day in the Life.

But in my opinion Pepper shines more for the arrengements than for the depth, the intrinsic thickness of the

individual songs. For example, the second side, apart the first and last song, is made up of weak songs.

Abbey Road is more compact, it has no defects whatsoevere (only one weak song: Maxwell), and presents songs that still touch many musical genres, but above all they reach more emotional pathos (the obsessive and paranoid feelings of Come Together and I Want You, the romanticism of Because, Golden Slumbers). 

But this is about Pepper and Abbey.....,Maxwell, Octopus, and Sun are all on the light side as songs go so I'm going to pick Pepper as the 'better' one here but that's as subjective as it gets.

1 Abbey Road: 9,5/10 - Five stars

2 Sgt Pepper: 9,5 - Five stars

3 White Album: 9,5 - Five stars

4 Magical Mystery Tour - 9 _Five stars (4 and half)

---

5 Rubber Soul: 8,5 - 4 stars

6 Revolver: 8,5 - 4 stars

7 Let It Be: 8+ - 4 stars

Thing is, the Beatles were a rock band until the day they broke up.   Sgt. Peppers was a rock album even with all its innovations and art music, and it is that rawness, those imperfections & flaws, that make it a true masterpiece.   Same for Revolver and the White Album.  

What made Abbey Road appealing was a slight but significant move away from rock 'n roll toward the kind of cleaner, somewhat overgroomed mainstream pop that would have immeasurable influence on all popular and commercial music in general.

I prefer Pepper.

Pepper.

I always thought, clearly in the minority, that Abbey Road was just okay.  I mean, it's still the Fabs, but if you remove the outstanding Harrison material, I don't think Paul or John had their best songwriting here. 

 

Only one? Not the awful Octopus's Garden then?

In My opinion Octopus's Garden is a good country-pop song (awful is Dont Pass Me By from the White Album).

Excellent the fender guitar solo by Harrison, excellent the arrangement, valid the melody and the

singing of Ringo.

If I consider the quality, 

It's better than When I'm Sixty Four, Lovely Rita and Good Morning Good Morning (Sgt Pepper) and similar to

She's Leaving Home, which flies higher than Octopus for the simphonic arrangement but (in my opinion) is too much verbose.

Moreover, in the context of the first side of Abbey Road, a light, pop but well-done song is good.

Anyway, I consider the side A of Sgt Pepper slightly better, as a whole, than the side A of Abbey Road.

Sgt Pepper's side A is perfect (conception, quality, sequence, arrangements, total effect) only She's Leaving (if I wanted to be finicky) is not completely successful.

Are you out of your bloody freaking mind?   Take the cotton out of your ears and turn off the leaf blower.

Do you think that Lovely Rita or Good Morning, Good Morning are much better?

In every italian forum of the Beatles, and even in the music critics books I have read, they are considered worse.

I couldn't care less about what books or forums say.   And yes I think Rita and Good Morning are better--  they have soul and joy and creativity.   Octopus's Garden is a children's song.   Nothing wrong with that but it's not on the level of anything on Peppers.   

I suppose it was a mere coincidence that all of the material on that majestic artistic triumph Sgt Pepper (1978) w/ Bee Gees Frampton et all was all taken from these two albums.

Sweet inspiration.

A Day In The Life is a pinnacle. For me the placing of this bleak vision, which still is very much of it's time, outside the Sgt Pepper garden gives the album the necessary contrast from the various psych pop styles of the content. '60s pop art and very good. Pair it with Mystery Tour and the picture takes on quite a shine.

With Abbey Road they finally got around to making a rock album, a proper one. And a really good one as well.

I'd pick Abbey Road, the worst is the same quasi daft ideas that first appeared on Pepper the best is generally better. Tough nothing quite tops A Day In The Life.

I know I probably shouldn't but I do like dear old Octopus' Garden. Country child like whimsy; pretty much everything I find abhorrent that is not punk or Puppy Love. Trouble is ol' Ringo is charming as you can get. Nice man.

I agree, I've read loads of Beatles books and never read anyone say OG was better than Rita or GMGM (which incidentally goes to a new level on the recent reissue).

Not a fan of a few others on Pepper  (Rita, Home, Morning and Kite), but that's probably more due to over-exposure

 

 

Whereas Maxwell and Octopus, I never understood why some people had gripes against them, but I still find both quite enjoyable nowadays

^ That is a great one.  I think the album is so transcendent that sometimes it's actually hard to hear.

There is much to be said how The Beatles were simultaneously arguably rock music greatest songwriters and arguably creating some of the most experimental  rock records at the time while never losing their pop sensibilities. I know this is something that Brian Wilson wanted to accomplish but couldn't really achieve. Saying The Beatles are overrated borders on the insane.  

Like Revolver, Sgt Peppers there are stark swings of different genres from song to song going from hard rock, classical, Indian, electronic psychedelia, music hall and pop music. This increased eclecticism helped broadened the sound of rock music overall.  

However, there are differences as well there is more layering of different instruments, the songs were longer, reprisal of the first track and cross fading of songs with sound effects. This was probably a huge influence on Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon and The Wall and probably countless of rock musicians. 

Nothing is straightforward the hard rock of Sgt. Peppers has french horns,  classical Indian song "Wiithin You Without You" fuses western strings and "A Day In The Life" uses an orchestra for avant garde purposes. The use of layering with additional instruments was most likely influenced by Pet Sounds but the Beatles style  was much different that is wasn't informed by the Phil Spector Wall of Sound. However, their use of the studio for creating psychedelic music which started on Revolver is unlike the Sounds from San Francisco.

Abbey Road contains some of The Beatles best vocal harmonies and instrumental work. The album does not sound like a typical 1969 album. The album is more prog like than their so called technically advanced friends Led Zeppelin or The Who were doing.  

The Beatles again uses a comparatively new instrument this time the synthesizer and blends it without really overwhelming their songwriting.  They used the instrument in a variety of ways including the classical use of the instrument on "Because" how proggy is that and the slow build-up of noise on "I Want You" (She's So Heavy)". 

Other interesting things from this album that I hear includes are traces of Black Sabbath on "I Want You" (She's So Heavy) and the interesting structure of the 16 minute medley. It also contains two of their greatest pops songs in "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" both written by George Harrison.  

Tough choice but it's Sgt. Peppers for me. 

1. Revolver

2. Abbey Road

3. Rubber Soul

That's all The Beatles I need.

Revolver and The White Album are brilliant too (And MMT, if that counts as studio album).

1.  Mystery Tour

2.  Revolver

3.  White Album

4.  Abbey Road

5.  Rubber Soul

6.  Sgt. Pepper

Of course, this could change after this glass of wine.....or after a bit too much horseradish.....or after a sleepless night with malaria sweats......or after a row with the missus.....or.......or.....or 6 could vault to 1....or Help! could sneak in the Top 6.....or Pepper could drop below Meet the Beatles.....or....or.....or.

I have to repeat my belief that MMT is not an official Beatles album (i.e. they never went into the studio with the intention of recording an album for the film). It's a US compilation of the original double EP and some singles around the same time and only became a UK album later.

Still some great stuff on it though.

Sgt. Pepper by far. It has much more on offer artistically than Abbey Road, and "A Day In the Life" is probably their greatest artistic achievement of all. Sgt. Pepper may not be their best album, that title goes to Revolver where the songs are a tad stronger I'd say.

Not that I don't like Abbey Road. It's a really good album, but something is missing. It somehow lacks a bit of commitment. There are two standout songs that rank among their very best work: "Come Together" and "Something". The remainder can't live up to it entirely, except perhaps "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" and the medley. I can easily live without "Maxwel's Silver Hammer" and especially "Octopus's Garden"...

It's hard to not like ABBEY ROAD, but I have to agree with this one.

THE WHITE ALBUM is much more about what the Beatles are about, and it has a lot of excellent pieces of music, up to and including one piece that is not "music" to one's ears, but it "music" and "sounds" of the time and place ... a perfect snapshot of the time and place ... that everyone ignores before getting to the end of the album!

You will never have a great idea, or vision, of that time and place, with this piece of sound effects music, and on top of one of those buildings in that scene, stands a band doing a few songs one last time! (... in another film!)

Tom Ozric wrote: Off the (direct) topic, but I’d like to know why the U.S. pressing (on Capitol) of Revolver left off 4 great Lennon tunes ? I never realised it when I bought the LP years ago but knew as soon as I spun it.

Capitol recompiled every album and the singles and EPs to stretch the catalogue further. Lots of 20 or so minute long LPs. In short. $.

The major tough side of this poll is that there are several years in between these albums, and when Sgt Peppers came out, it was, by very far, a very important album, though many would say that Frank Zappa and a few others had been doing psychedelia as well.

Abbey Road, by comparison, did not burn the FM radio band as much, as the Sgt Pepper's album did a few years back, when no one had heard anything of the kind much, and it made the album important, specially when it sold by the bushel, which almost no other band had done, and they were not the only "psychedelic" album out there.

AR, is probably the better of the two albums in that the "songs" had matured and were very strong, where the Sgt Pepper's stuff, while meaningful, stood up as a fun album instead. And maybe that is the biggest difference between these albums. AR, lyrically, is much more with it and serious, and the side 2 of the LP will blow out Sgt Peppers any day of the week.

Exactly.

Oh there have been other concept albums in rock music before Sgt. Peppers. However, they certainly altered the form because it has characteristics of a concept album without really being one. So in essence they arguably created a new way in presenting a rock album. 
 

I am on the fence with Frank Zappa and his music is certainly different. However, I don't understand the comparisons to The Beatles and Zappa musically. The Beatles were extremely talented songwriters with high melodic content, strong production values and enough novelty in the music that attracted them to seemingly everyone including musicians. They basically had all the markets covered.

Zappa had the musical novelty but didn't have the other traits The Beatles had for me to want to listen to him on a repeated basis. 

I found A Day In The Life not so much as a grande finale but the alter ego to the rest of the album. It's a bleak lyric, a reality after the colourful garden of psychedelic pop rock bookended by the theme. Placed outside it gives an aspect to an album I don't think anyone has done since. The album isn't themed driectly; a variety of contemporary songs penned in the boundaries but outside reality waits and it's not well...

 

I'm so glad to see that someone else has realised that Sgt Pepper is not a concept album.

Thanks ... it's never been a concept album, and the last piece pretty much dismantles the rest of it all ... although a clever writer (and John and Paul were!) could easily say that after all that stuff we're tired and need to go to bed, which they made it sound better in another album.

For that matter, even Magical Mystery Tour is not a concept album either ... in fact, I am not sure that any of the BEATLES' albums are a "concept" album, even though THE WHITE ALBUM is probably closer to a concept album than any of them. 

I think that AR is an album where the BEATLES wanted to do something that the record companies did not want ... and it was to get away from the "song format" and do something else ... which they did on Side 2 of the AR album. A certain amount of freedom that really showed that these guys were very good musicians and could do stuff that was superb.

Sadly, comparatively speaking, none of the 4 came close to the brilliant last 2 or 3 albums on their own, which to me was a disappointment ... it made me think that the real talent was not those 4 guys but someone else that was steering the music into something else, bigger than just a hit song ... 

MMT isn't even a proper Beatles album, it's a compilation of the MMT EP and some singles. MMT (the original EP) is a soundtrack to the film (or the Beatle songs from the film, not even all the music), not really a concept.

There are tell tale signs of many things that had been written, if not completely, at least in various parts, when you listen to the original bootleg of the Beatles in Hamburg, which if I am not mistaken, was something like 3 LP's. Some of those bits ended up as far as LET IT BE, and WHITE ALBUM, if my memory serves me right. Nothing major, but you can see that they had riffs and bits and pieces that they kept and then found a place for them, or a song would develop.

I imagine that this is normal within a group that stays together a reasonable amount of time.

BTW, if you have not heard/seen, PETER JACKSON has been given ALL THE MATERIAL that is related to LET IT BE, and they are planning a huge film and release it all. According to Paul, he feels that LET IT BE, the film as is right now, is a bit sad, and mostly shows the tensions in the band, which I have always disagreed with ... the bootlegs around it, which likely showed a good hour plus of other stuff, including fun stuff, showed that they also had some fun, be it singing MARY JANE, or BESAME MUCHO ... and all kinds of other nutsy stuff, and Paul says that the whole recording of that album was actually a much more fun time than folks imagine.

I always thought, that's not a sad/bummer film, even in my reviews of the film, I would not trash it, since I, personally, felt that this was about REAL PEOPLE, doing their thing together ... and when that happens there are agreements and disagreements, but only one of them kinda bothered me, and it was George Harrison getting upset and saying he will play it if he wants him to, or he will leave if he wants him to (Paul) ... and John intervenes and starts a different song. This moodyness on George's part is clear on Patti's book about the whole thing.

I have always felt that the last two albums (WHITE and AR) were about ... the Beatles ... 4 people ... and not something else, and LET IT BE, gave us that, but a lot was taken out to make the stars look better, and come off as master musicians doing their work ... and in the end, they were telling us, that there is no master musician ... just some grand fun, and the desire to put together great music. And play it!