The album was recorded on four tracks and it shows. Plus why was it remastered in mono?! It has some interesting experimentation with the sitar and mellotron plus some great guitar distortions typical of psychedelic music. Nevertheless...

Producer/Engineer Norman Smith did better work with "Srgt Pepper" and "Pide Piper". Though The Beatles and Pink Floyd also worked with limited resources, as the technology of the time was primitive, the music and sound quality on both albums were infinitely better.

"S.F. Sorrow" is worth a listen, though. It serves as a memento of psychedelic rock of the 60's.

GREAT PSYCHEDELIA
S.F. SORROW seems to elicit extreme responses--many either love it or love to bash it. I'm in the former category; in fact, I think it's the group's masterpiece and one of the many masterpieces from the psychedelic era. After the two 1965 albums (albums that were a bit ahead of their time, I might add), Pretty Things released EMOTIONS (1967) in the UK and started working on S.F. SORROW the same year. It's an enthralling work--yes, brilliant...there isn't a weak song to be found. The whole is cohesive, and it's filled with bracing variety.

Pretty Things keep the chord progressions fairly simple and straightforward, which works well with the group's hard-edged sound. The thoughtful and infectious melodies and harmonies, the highly tasteful and original rhythms, the band's mix of drive and finesse...all this works together most convincingly to thoroughly knock me out. Even the endings are imaginative! Horns and strings are used to give a classy psychedelic disposition to "S.F. Sorrow Is Born." An interesting, even bizarre mix of instruments embellishes "Bracelets Of Fingers." The middle instrumental breaks of that tune and "She Says Good Morning" pour on the cosmic splendor. "Private Sorrow" is a favorite of mine, with its quirky little breaks and hypnotic march rhythms. Each song is individualistic and has its own uniquely special qualities.

The Beatles and Pink Floyd influences are present, but are assimilated into the group's own sound and style. Nothing here sounds pilfered, not even the very Beatles-like "Baron Saturday." (The bending strings on the chorus are just an ecstatic gas, and that fake-out ending gets me grinning from ear to ear every time!)

I see no need at all to compare this album with anything done by The Who. I love The Who, and I love Pretty Things. They are two different bands with two different sounds.

As far as this being the first rock opera goes, I'm still not convinced that a true rock opera exists. (Grab a copy of Willi Apel's HARVARD DICTIONARY OF MUSIC, read the seven and a half pages for opera, then read the two pages on oratorio and make up your own mind.) I think it's really stretching it to call this and TOMMY opera--too much is simply narration, for one thing.

The first rock concept album? I think the first rock concept album was by Elvis. In general, both Christmas and Gospel easily qualify as concepts, and the Elvis albums predate S.F. SORROW by several years.

Because of various circumstances, this product of 1967 was not released until late in 1968 (when psychedelia was very much on the decline). That's no matter; anyone who loves the psychedelic 60s should thrill to this. My advice is to forget all the hype on what this album was supposed to be, and just enjoy it for what it still is--a great album.

Cheers,
Murray

A pretty solid document of classic psychedelia
As you probably know, "S.F. Sorrow" was the first album-length rock opera, released about a year before The Who's "Tommy". In listening to this somewhat-forgotten record, I had the impression that it was an inventive, interesting and even brilliant (at times) production, but the overall effect is a tad underwhelming. This may be why The Who's much more fully realized work is so much more popular. Maybe the most noticeable element of "Sorrow" is the frequent psychedelic touches - fuzzed-out guitar effects, sitars, backwards bits and altered vocals, many of which are used to good effect. And the band manages some strong melodies and effective lyrics as well, but the end impression is that of a good, solid album rather than a monolithic classic. Fans of 60s British rock should definitely hear this one. It's optional for the rest of humankind.

Sorry - Not Sorrow
Anyone who would wish the Pretty Things to have the credit for the rock concept album must be a) a sadist, or b) still overly willing to bury the Beach Boys's "Pet Sounds". The Things may have been the first British band to have a go at the idea, but having a clever idea isn't quite the same as delivering the goods.

Even accepting that this wasn't exactly the same lineup which cranked out probably the least inhibited and most elementally raw extant of British blues (put politely, the Pretties - the evidence still exists on their first two albums, "The Pretty Things" and "Get The Picture?" - made damn near ALL the legendary British R and B types resemble wussycats), it is an awful stretch to match the concept of "S.F. Sorrow" to the quality of its execution. The musicianship is competent, but when competence is applied to very weak material, the result is the sort of thing that ended up giving both psychedelic music and the concept album a bad name to begin with, enough that one begins to wonder if the Beatles (who were reputed to have encouraged the Things to give it a go; former Beatle engineer Norman Smith - who was also producing the original Pink Floyd - produced "Sorrow") didn't secretly figure the Things to fall on their faces trying to make their own kind of "Sgt. Pepper". It took the Who to restore whatever good name both might have had ("The Who Sell Out" for both, "Tommy" just for the concept album, unless you're willing to call the underrated instrumental "Underture" a last gasp of psychedelic rhythmajigging), though the Kinks also weighed in with a minor gem ("The Village Green Preservation Society"). But on whole, "S.F. Sorrow" was bound to die a death (despite the interesting enough storyline) and did in due course. About two albums and a few more personnel shifts later, the Pretty Things took a shot at getting back to basics, but while it was occasionally interesting, it wasn't even close to the same. Stay with the first two albums. THOSE were the real Pretty Things.
S.F. Sorrow has a significant place in rock & roll history, though it's hardly widely acknowledged. Generally considered the first "rock opera," the 1967 opus by erstwhile gritty rockers turned psychedelic visionaries predates the Who's vastly more popular Tommy by a year. (Incidentally, there are significant parallels between the plots of both records.) Some would therefore lay blame for all the theatrical tomfoolery that followed at the feet of the Pretties, but they didn't get much credit for their accomplishment, so they probably don't deserve much reproof. Like most everything that came out of London in the late '60s, S.F. Sorrow owes a debt to the Beatles in its sonic adventurousness (Beatles/Pink Floyd engineer Norman Smith deserves credit) and kaleidoscopic lyrical bent, albeit with darker hues (the protagonist's sweetheart is killed in a hydrogen balloon explosion). If your idea of a night at the opera centers around classic Brit rock, S.F. Sorrow is just the ticket. --Steven Stolder
Digitally remastered reissue of their acclaimed 1967 album, the world's first rock opera, complete with four bonus tracks cut during the album's recording sessions added, 'Defecting Grey', 'Mr. Evasion', 'Talking About The Good Times' & 'Walking Through My Dreams'. 17 tracks total. 'S.F.Sorrow' is widely considered the source of inspiration for Pete Townshend & The Who's 'Tommy'! 1998 Snapper release.
Digitally Remastered Reissue of their 1968 Rock Opera Album, Augmented with Four Bonus Tracks Not on the Original Edition. This was the Very First Rock Opera and it Inspired Pete Townshend and Andrew Lloyd Webber to Take the Ball to Greater Heights.