Last week Robert Hilburn argued that the "Sgt. Pepper" LP--despite remaining a "landmark work"--is not the Beatles' best album because it is weighted down by seven songs that "represent the longest stretch of mediocre material" the group ever recorded. Calendar letter writers were not pleased--by a 9-1 ratio.

Hilburn admits in his article that he voted "Sgt. Pepper" the "fourth best rock album ever" in a recent poll. Then he says that he "hadn't actually listened to the LP in years."

What does this say about the man's opinion or his ethics as a critic? I do not find this difficult to believe, however, based on Hilburn's history.


Huntington Beach

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World