It seems to me that McCartney was being ironic in "Getting Better" and "Fixing A Hole". Am I alone in this? You'd think a Gen X pro snarker would pick up on that. Like his deconstruction of "Getting Better" is actually just my initial interpretation. Obviously it's not actually getting better. Only stoners wouldn't see that. But it also sort of is. That's why McCartney is interesting, because he's simultaneously optimistic and dark/weird. Billy Childish was kinda right, but I don't hold those qualities against Paul. I don't think he poisoned rock or something. Billy Childish sounds like Power Pop Pop-Pop in that Overrated Albums column.
I'm not feeling this Sgt. Pepper hate. First Scharpling, then Childish, now DeRogatis. I still think it's a pretty good album. "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" eats it, but so does "Tax Man" off of Revolver. "Tax Man" is one of my least favorite songs ever. Stupid George Harrison doesn't want to pay his bills once he's not poor anymore.
"Lovely Rita Meter Maid", "Good Morning", and "A Day In The Life" are all awesome.
Saying "Tomorrow Never Knows" is better than "A Day In The Life" is about as cliche'd a music-geek statement as can possibly be made. Were they having a contest? Did they unveil "A Day In The Life" and say "Finally! We have a song more psychedelically better than 'Tomorrow Never Knows'!"?
I agree that Pet Sounds is overrated, and the idea that Pet Sounds or even the proto-light-rock of Forever Changes (which I love, but which is saddled with at LEAST as much extraneous orchestration as Sgt. Pepper) might "rock harder" than Sgt. Pepper is just pure bullshit. McCartney is kind of a granny-lover though.
Incidentally, in his book The Psychic Soviet, Ian Svenonious, who has vigorously defended the creative contributions of McCartney to the Beatles, wrote an excellent (semi-tongue-in-cheek-but-not-really) essay on how Dylan going electric was a politically reactionary move wherein he traded in the low-glamour social agency of folk music for the big bucks of pop music.