The Beatles' Philosophy Examined

[Dajjal]

Here are the lyrics of the Beatles "within you without you" written by George Harrison.


We were talking-about the space between us all
And the people-who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth-then it's far too late-when they pass away.
We were talking-about the love we all could share-when we find it
To try our best to hold it there-with our love
With our love-we could save the world-if they only knew.
Try to realize it's all within yourself
No-one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small,
And life flows ON within you and without you.
We were talking-about the love that's gone so cold and the people,
Who gain the world and lose their soul-
They don't know-they can't see-are you one of them?
When you've seen beyond yourself-then you may find, peace of mind,
Is waiting there-
And the time will come when you see
we're all one, and life flows on within you and without you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There's no philosophy behind the Beatles.

The Beatles played a large part in interesting the youth of my generation in eastern religions. George was the Beatle most into such things, and he donated a manor house to the Krishna movement. I visited it once.

There's a Krishna restaurant in Tucson that is gourmet quality. Its called Govinda's. It was a long time ago but I saw Paul and Linda McCartney there twice. And, over their cash register, there's a framed letter signed by them both.

There was never any preaching except they would have special times during the week when they fed anyone who came for free if you listened to the program. Sorta like the Salvation Army.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dear Mr. Meddite Person:

Please advise what the people in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, and Afghanistan have that the U.S. wants.

Somehow I missed it.

Then you weren't paying attention.

Modern day "wars" are actually oil grabs and/or related to where oil is in the region.

Is there really anyone who doesn't know this?

 

[whitehall]

In retrospect it seems that the Beatles were mild substance abusers while the bad boys of R&R, the Rolling Stones encouraged all sorts of abuse. And yet the Stones go on to old age with the band intact while the Beatles lost one to cancer and another to murder.

 

[PainefulTruth]

"Lennon contends that global harmony is within our reach, but only if we reject the mechanisms of social control that restrict human potential."[4] In the opinion of Blaney, with "Imagine", Lennon attempted to raise people's awareness of their interaction with the institutions that affect their lives.[3] Rolling Stone's David Fricke commented: "[Lennon] calls for a unity and equality built upon the complete elimination of modern social order: geopolitical borders, organised religion, [and] economic class."[5]

Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."[4] He told NME: "There is no real Communist state in the world; you must realize that. The Socialism I speak about ... [is] not the way some daft Russian might do it, or the Chinese might do it. That might suit them. Us, we should have a nice ... British Socialism."[4]

Yes, he was anti-religion but we never really get what he was for. He appears to have been a humanist, agnostic anarchist. If there is no group defense, via country (or ???), despots will quickly take over. Again, it's the "there's got to be a better way" head in the sand approach. He can't advocate anything for fear of appearing to advocate something.

The song is not about stripping your neighbours house and sharing material possessions. It is about sharing all the world in peace without the divisiveness and barriers of borders, religions, and nationalities, and a life unattached to material possessions.

Yes, no possessions. It doesn't work no matter how nice it sounds. Did he give away his millions? Borders are necessary for self-defense--personal and national.

The philosophy behind the Beatles: $$$$$$$$$

Nothing wrong with wealth honorably acquired, which it appears they did. If that was all there was to their agenda, they wouldn't have broken up. I think Ringo was the least pretentious and had the best, although limited, post Beatles career.

The Beatles...proof that record execs can sell us anything.

The Beatles fame enabled them to depart from the rut rock was in. If it had been up to the execs, they'd have been singing Buddy Holly songs and staying the hell away from blues and the controversial stuff.

The song is not about stripping your neighbours house and sharing material possessions.

No, it's not about that, but that's what happens. Reality is a bitch, and so many on the liberal left and religious right try to ignore it.

But I think it was not so much about having nothing as it was having nothing to fight about.

Things aren't set up that way. There'll always be those who come along a test us. We mustn't go looking for a fight, but we can't just always run either. To avoid tyranny we need freedom. And freedom requires continual vigilance. As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." No peaceful person wants war, but the tyrants just won't leave us alone.

 

[whitehall]

Lennon was born a middle class guy and he didn't deserve to be murdered by some monster but there is no meaningful philosophy involved. He preferred to spend most of his time in bed because he became fabulously wealthy and could afford it.

 

[PainefulTruth]

... he didn't deserve to be murdered...

Has anyone even hinted at such a suggestion.

 

[Dajjal]

Lennon was born a middle class guy and he didn't deserve to be murdered by some monster but there is no meaningful philosophy involved. He preferred to spend most of his time in bed because he became fabulously wealthy and could afford it.

He spent most of his time in bed? John Lennon did not write just one song, and he should not be under estimated.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM]John Lennon - Give Peace A Chance - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PainefulTruth]

He spent most of his time in bed? John Lennon did not write just one song, and he should not be under estimated.

So he's a couch apple instead of a potato.

I take each of his songs at face value. Imagine is NOT philosophically similar to Revolution or Why Don't We Do It In the Road?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Thread moved to more appropriate forum.

 

[Pogo]

Lennon was born a middle class guy and he didn't deserve to be murdered by some monster but there is no meaningful philosophy involved. He preferred to spend most of his time in bed because he became fabulously wealthy and could afford it.

He spent most of his time in bed? John Lennon did not write just one song, and he should not be under estimated.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM]John Lennon - Give Peace A Chance - YouTube[/ame]

Pop quiz: Who's that playing second acoustic guitar with his back to the camera?

Answer in white font here: Tommy Smothers

 

[Pogo]

I know, why the Beatles. They've had a lot of influence which should be examined. There are three songs which cause us to emote a certain way about life, but I think they're incomplete or just wrong:

Let it Be: Words of wisdom, really? Though I'm not completely sure what it's getting at, it seems to advocate a passive, apathetic, non -participatory existence.

All You Need Is Love: We certainly want and even need love, but that's not all there is. I think we can achieve fulfillment by giving and needing love, but there are other paths as well. For some, it may not even be available, but that doesn't mean their lives can have no meaning.

Imagine: "Imagine all the people living life in peace". Of all their songs, this is the most erroneous. We aren't here to float through life without contention. Evil people will always be here, putting their own importance above the rest of us and causing discord. Then in the next breath the song asks us to imagine no heaven, which seems to be a contradiction. Yes, live life for today as in not for some life to come, but that doesn't mean to live life only for the moment at hand either.

We're here to love, discover, create and when necessary, take a stand.

I'm not picking on the Beatles, just these particular songs. They had a lot of others. Two of my favorites are the whimsical Rocky Raccoon, with whom I identity having learned early that Gideon has checked out; and Because.

I like this version even better than the Beatles':

Because - Across the Universe - YouTube

First of all you're trying to read way too much into simple songwriting. There was a lot of that going around in the day.

Let it Be: simply an everyday reflection of current events within the band. Brian Epstein had died, the group felt directionless, Lennon wasn't particularly taking charge, and McCartney took it upon himself to sort of direct things, come up with ideas like doing Magical Mystery Tour and the live-no-overdubs idea (which eventually degraded into the Let it Be album) -- anyway in the midst of this stress load McCartney, a notorious workaholic, dreams of his mother who died in his teens who tells him in the dream to not take on so much work and just "let it be", which he then makes into a song. That's what "mother Mary" means-- it's his mother's name.

Conceiving songs in dreams wasn't limited to this; Yesterday channeled the same way, as did In My Life for Lennon. Lennon and McCartney, who had a perpetual songwriting rivalry going on, were both trying to write a nostalgic song about Liverpool; McCartney came up with (IMHO his best work) Penny Lane; Lennon tried one idea, then another, nothing was working, so he went to bed and in his REM sleep came In My Life. True story.


All You Need is Love is simple sarcasm and should be read that way. Lennon was a master at sarcasm. It's a mockery of simplistic thinking that 'all you need is love", a sublime simplism in a time where anti-establishment sentiment was popular but forgot that some kind of establishment is always necessary; hence the sarcasm of "all you need".

Imagine has been dissected here by others, and there was a separate thread recently by PoliticalChic. It's simply a longing for a world without the conflicts that we create for ourselves. Keeping in mind of course that Lennon had a lot of time logged on LSD, the exposure to which strips away those silly façades and leaves such visions available to the mind, however temporarily.

Because has the distinction of being the very last song the Beatles recorded as a group of four. It involved painstaking scoring by George Martin for the three voices, which were multitracked into (I think) nine. Not much in the way of meaning -- the philosophy of "random" was rampant at the time -- but nice harmonies, which is a trademark of Lennon's writing, which tended to be "horizontal" as opposed to McCartney's more "vertical" lyrical style. The melody is inspired by Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata.

I can strongly recommend Ian McDonald's book Revolution In the Head for these backstories and their meanings as applied both to the songwriters themselves and to the world they lived in.

Have a look at this guy multitracking himself a version of Because that gives an idea of the work that went into its arrangement -- he does each part singly:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWONqXt1XZ8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWONqXt1XZ8[/ame]

-- and then all the parts put together and tripled:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pe5_dpJkCQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pe5_dpJkCQ[/ame]

Big credit to George Martin for this arrangement.


Bottom line throughout: it's easy to overthink Lennon and/or McCartney songs into far more than they meant to represent. Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite for example is simply a 19th century circus poster set to music with inventive sound effects. Doesn't mean anything deeper than that. Occasionally there would be but the real deep-meaning stuff was the domain of George Harrison; Dajjal has posted more about that.

 

[Pogo]

I have a great idea: Why don't we look for moral and philosophical guidance from a small group of moderately talented English musicians who have never actually had a job or completed any noteworthy education, who have more money than God, and who can pay someone to fulfill any and all obligations that may ever come their way?

Surely, these blokes can teach us a lot about Life.

Make no mistake-- "moderately talented"? Oh wait, you already made the mistake.

As for having a job, well starting in their teens they played over ten thousand shows including several hours six or seven days a week in Germany, so there is no way to paint them as less than industrious.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, if our world really was ruled by love, it would indeed, be all we need. That's not as simple or simplistic as it may seem. If we loved each other, there would be no starvation, no stealing, no murder, nothing to fight wars over.

As it is, the US "fights" wars against people who cannot possibly harm us and only because we want what they have.

Not very "christian" of us, is it?

Who said we are or should be Christian? An it is idealistic to expect everybody to love everybody, which is what you're talking about. It's not only simplistic, it's impossible. It would only take 1 out of 6 billion to spoil the barrel, and we all know there'd be a whole lot more than that. Some of the most hate filled people I know go to church 8 days a week, and even man the pulpits.

Imagine there is no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will live as one

It's a feel good song with no foundation in reality, playing on emotions running on blind faith. It's like the song War, "Lord knows there's got to be a better way." What way? Neither one has a clue. How would all the people share all the world? Think about it.....imagine it. Your house would be stripped in 30 sec.

We tried the collectivist Revolution, and it didn't work out (duh). Think the Occupy Movement.
"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

Sure it's a feelgood song, or I'd say a "dreamer" song. Says so right in the lyrics. It's an ideal. It's not supposed to be realism; that's not what idealism is.

None of which is to say humanity should just throw up its hands and give up on the idea of peace just because we don't see it in the present. I'm afraid "your house would be stripped in 30 seconds" misses the point completely.

 

[Indeependent]

The Beatles philosophy...Write great songs and make a lot of money.
Geez...I LOVE the Beatles but you are WAY over thinking them.

 

[Pogo]

The philosophy behind the Beatles: $$$$$$$$$

The Beatles...proof that record execs can sell us anything.

Oddly the history is actually did the reverse; the record execs were the followers here. Capitol Records, the associate of Parlophone that had the US rights, resisted putting their records out here, thinking them "too English", until they simply could not be ignored any more. "Imagine" -- refusing to sell Beatles records because you think they won't sell. Years later they repeated exactly the same mistake with Kate Bush.

It's not what happens today, not nearly, but in that case just about exactly fifty years ago (yike) the record-buying public demanded it into existence. The Beatles were a band that happened along at exactly the right time, and who also had a remarkable intra-chemistry that held them together in sync; moreover they had one songwriter who was and is a certifiable genius (McCartney) who inspired a second songwriter to take up the trade and who wrote the lion's share of Beatles output for roughly their first two years of popularity (Lennon) and even a third songwriter who managed to pen what Frank Sinatra called "the best love song of the last fifty years" (Harrison/ Something).

All of that was revolutionary; keep in mind that in 1963-64 it was not at all normal to actually write your own songs; you were either a singer or a writer, not both. In that they were pioneers. Now everybody does it. In that sense they truly did change the world.

 

[Indeependent]

The philosophy behind the Beatles: $$$$$$$$$

The Beatles...proof that record execs can sell us anything.

Oddly the history is actually did the reverse; the record execs were the followers here. Capitol Records, the associate of Parlophone that had the US rights, resisted putting their records out here, thinking them "too English", until they simply could not be ignored any more. "Imagine" -- refusing to sell Beatles records because you think they won't sell. Years later they repeated exactly the same mistake with Kate Bush.

It's not what happens today, not nearly, but in that case just about exactly fifty years ago (yike) the record-buying public demanded it into existence. The Beatles were a band that happened along at exactly the right time, and who also had a remarkable intra-chemistry that held them together in sync; coupled with one songwriter who was and is a certifiable genius (McCartney) who inspired a second songwriter who wrote the lion's share of Beatles output for roughly their first two years of popularity (Lennon) and even a third songwriter who managed to pen what Frank Sinatra called "the best love song of the last fifty years" (Harrison/ Something).

All of that was revolutionary; keep in mind that in 1963-64 it was not at all normal to actually write your own songs; you were either a singer or a writer, not both. In that they were pioneers. Now everybody does it. In that sense they truly did change the world.

You are correct but everybody IS entitled to their own opinion.
I love the Beatles and my wife loves the Rolling Stones.

 

[Pogo]

How would all the people share all the world? Think about it.....imagine it. Your house would be stripped in 30 sec.

The song is not about stripping your neighbours house and sharing material possessions. It is about sharing all the world in peace without the divisiveness and barriers of borders, religions, and nationalities, and a life unattached to material possessions.

being worth around 300 million when he wrote this the song, to imagine no possessions must have been as much of a challenge to himself as it was a challenge to the world.

But I think it was not so much about having nothing as it was having nothing to fight about.

Lennon was a realist about these things; during the heady daze of Beatlemania when his Rolls Royce was being slapped and beaten by fans, he quipped "they bought the car -- they've got a right to smash it up".

 

[Pogo]

Best line from the song, "Imagine": "Imagine no possessions..."

This from a musician with six homes, 15 cars,...

Priceless.

What '6 homes, 15 cars"?

Lennon rarely even drove... he wasn't very good at it. Harrison was the car enthusiast.

 

[Pogo]

Taking this out of order:

Nothing wrong with wealth honorably acquired, which it appears they did. If that was all there was to their agenda, they wouldn't have broken up. I think Ringo was the least pretentious and had the best, although limited, post Beatles career.

That was all there was to their agenda. What happened was, they grew up. Moving into their mid and late-twenties, this group that had been together some twelve years continuously since 1958 (save Ringo who came in 1962) were getting married, opening their eyes to new horizons, new arts, etc, plus they had a management crisis with the death of Brian Epstein, which void McCartney tried to fill, getting the inevitable backlash. There was acrimony. Ringo got disgusted and left during the White Album, (which is why McCartney is playing drums on Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence) -- Harrison can be seen in the "Let It Be" film arguing with McCartney about the latter's micromanaging. There was rancor, and that's why they broke up. Obviously they all had material left in them, and they proceeded to record it.

Yes, no possessions. It doesn't work no matter how nice it sounds. Did he give away his millions? Borders are necessary for self-defense--personal and national.

Things aren't set up that way. There'll always be those who come along a test us. We mustn't go looking for a fight, but we can't just always run either. To avoid tyranny we need freedom. And freedom requires continual vigilance. As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." No peaceful person wants war, but the tyrants just won't leave us alone.

You have a very dark view of the world; there have been, and still are, societies that function (and very well) without personal possessions; the Hutterites for example are a self-sufficient religious sect who live and work as a collective; nobody has personal possessions beyond basically their clothes; and they're devout pacifists. They've lived this way for five hundred years and in that entire time they've had I think two murders and one suicide. In five centuries.

It's really not necessary to see the world as an inevitable dank dungeon of evil ogres. That's kind of Imagine's point - hope.