I just listened to this album. This isn't bad at all. This

That's not an album, that's a banana

>>71625113
nice opinion kid

If you also the take historical context and what the album does into account, it should get 10/10, even though not every song is 10/10. Reviewing the album strictly musically is wrong.

Yeah, Warhol's super underappreciated as a musician.

>>71625279
>listen to Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
>think it's bad and too weird
>don't like it
>"Well, I'll give it a 10/10 anyway cuz it has historical context"
>10/10 ratings now mean nothing because you are rating albums you don't like 10/10 because of historical significance

>>71625279
You're right. I thought it's shit, but gave it a pass for the context of the release

Original VU line up never put out a bad record.
Squeeze isn't a VU album except in name only!

>>71625646
Are you trying to say that taking historic context into account weakens the judgement about an album, book, film, etc.? That makes no sense as it's a way to construct more convicingly/better criteria with which you can review an object. I didn't say that historic context should wholly determine the judgement.

Sgt Pepper is certainly inferior to TVU&N.

>>71625279
>Reviewing the album strictly musically is wrong.

I'm not a critic nigga, it's not my job to evaluate its place in a culture I wasn't even a love for. I don't care what the fuck happened to the album contextually unless it adds more to the music listening experience.

>>71625646
This is just a meme, right? People here don't really think Sgt. Peppers changed music, right?

>>71626469
s/t and Loaded also weren't made by the original VU lineup

but they are still great

>>71625279
>Reviewing the album strictly musically is wrong.
I think the otherwise. You shouldn't praise an album if it's completely shit.
Not the case with this one but you get me.

>>71626857
Yes, I agree, that's why I said it shouldn't be the only factor, but you can't dismiss it.

>>71627020
What's the purpose of assigning a rating to an album? It's not your duty to determine the historical significance of an album, and you shouldn't even pretend you can, as you aren't a historian. Plus, history exists apart from you regardless; why not then let your rating uniquely reflect you? Represent yourself

>>71625113
Yes anon.It truly is an amazing album.Thanks for the pinpoint observation.

>>71626776
You new here? Clearly have never seen The Beach Boys cock sucking that goes on here

>>71627066
I agree that attaching a number to an album is generic, not ideal.

>why not then let your rating uniquely reflect you?
Sure, but if you study the historic context, it will likely change your appreciation of the art object.

>rolling stones songs with a viola and german lesbian singing
>omg it changed the course of music
All this album did is let talentless art college hacks with no musical knowledge into the spotlight with their 'poetry' for years to come

>>71627183
I hope you're being ironic.

shitty album, 7/10 at best

>>71626776
There was a guy on last night that keeps coming on mu and saying sgt pepper is more experimental than vu&n and compared Paul McCartney to Pierre Schaefer and john cage

>>71627859
lmao

>>71625279
Nah mate I live in a vacuum and English isn't my first language. I wasn't even alive in the sixties and won't pretend to know anything about it.
Perhaps I should rate Aristotelian Physics 10/10 for historical significance.

>>71625279
>"rating" an album

hahahahah