Graham Laker sent me this (many thanks) and I think our views about the article are pretty similar.
What is odd is that in the second column the author identifies some of the reasons why it’s not the greatest ever before suggesting it is, because it “resists criticism” – a bizarre contradiction (and there is no such thing as a cultural artefact that resists criticism. That’s just bollocks).
Is it “revolutionary”? It came after early albums by most of the top San Francisco bands, Hendrix, the Byrds, Love, Doors, Mothers of Invention, Velvet Underground etc.
How do we know that “each generation” is under its spell? Do we treasure it? Are we obliged to? It’s just clichéd rhetoric.
I’ve got a copy of it, I’m happy to acknowledge that the Beatles did many remarkable things, and that some of the tracks on this album are pretty fine. Why can’t we be allowed to say it’s an OK album, or even a pretty good album, without having to go on-and-on about it as the greatest ever?
As I’ve suggested before, I’m not even sure it’s the Beatles’ greatest album. I’m even more certain that there’s no such thing as the greatest album ever.