The Beatles' Philosophy Examined

[Pogo]

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?

Not at all. In the case of Revolution, Lennon was bouncing back and forth between pacifism and militant-worship. He's straddling that fence in an obvious way in the version Revolution 1 ("don't you know that you can count me out... in")

Why Don't We Do It In the Road is entirely McCartney, alone, even playing all the instruments. Nothing to do with Lennon, and one of those instances that proves that once they let their once-lofty personal standards slide, they were not immune to recording crap.

George Martin tried to get them to pare the White Album down to one good record instead of two erratic self-indulgent ones. And he was right. But they didn't.

 

[edthecynic]

You can make the Beatles into any philosophical bent you want!

Gun nuts:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsDFxmbjZ7I]The Beatles- Happiness is a Warm Gun - YouTube[/ame]

Tea Tards:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtksJEj2Keg]Taxman by The Beatles with lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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; 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.

This isn't "opinion" - it's history.

 

[Pogo]

You can make the Beatles into any philosophical bent you want!

Gun nuts:

The Beatles- Happiness is a Warm Gun - YouTube

Tea Tards:

Taxman by The Beatles with lyrics - YouTube

Happiness is a Warm Gun - title inspired by Lennon's incredulousness at an American magazine ad he had seen that literally said "Happiness is a warm gun". This caught his amazement: "a warm gun means you've just shot something!". The rest of the song is a lazy rambling cynicism with offhand references to Yoko ("Mother Superior") and heroin ("jump the gun") riffing off the "gun" concept. The darkness of the melody reflects the heroin regularly pumping through his veins at the time. But not really any coherent statement of philosophy; just filler really, although they worked hard on the recording during the recording of an album that was largely dedicated to individual work rather than collective as in this exception.

Taxman was Harrison's foray into Lennonesque sarcasm, railing against the enormous tax rate the UK had them in at the time. Paul McCartney on lead guitar playing a faux-Indian raga as a nod to the songwriter.

I don't think the "tea tards" are really about taxes at all, but that belongs in the political forums.

 

[Pogo]

Jots & Tittles

Sexy Sadie was entirely about Maharihsi Mahesh Yogi and their disillusionment after his scandal soured them. Replace the words "Sexy Sadie" with "Maharishi" and you have the original as Lennon conceived it. They changed it obviously to avoid a lawsuit.

Baby You're a Rich Man - some claim, though I'm not sure I can hear it, that Lennon in the latter part of the song's chorus is singing "Baby you're a rich fag Jew" (referring to Brian Epstein). Inconclusive, although it is typical of Lennon's self-parody ("sweet Loretta Fat, she thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan")

- The original working title of It's Only Love was "That's a Nice Hat"... ​

- during recording of She Said She Said, Lennon sang alternate lyrics: "who put all that crap in your hair"..."she's making me feel like my trousers are torn"​

 

[PainefulTruth]

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.

Idealism is a direction if not a goal. But it's unrealistic to think that we will ever be without contention with evil.

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.

How so? The "Lord knows there's got to be a better way" 'reasoning'. I think you're missing the import of Lennon's death. What dream would have stopped it, what dream would stop any evil?

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.

So wealth wasn't all there was to their agenda, as I said.

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.

Yes, and that's where it errs. I'm not saying that the whole world is dark and evil, but its existence is undeniable and will be forever there to test us. We can't reason with them. There will always be those who just want to watch the World burn. Imagining it away is no different than wishing it away.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Idealism is a direction if not a goal. But it's unrealistic to think that we will ever be without contention with evil.

Again -- idealism isn't supposed to sync with 'realistic'. It's a goal you aim for. Just as we all aim for perfection in what we do; it doesn't mean we expect to actually achieve it. That's not the point.

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.

How so? The "Lord knows there's got to be a better way" 'reasoning'. I think you're missing the import of Lennon's death. What dream would have stopped it, what dream would stop any evil?

I'm at a loss to comprehend why you keep conflating John Lennon and Edwin Starr. They didn't sound alike or look alike and they never worked together. I doubt they ever even met. And I don't see the import of Lennon's death in this; the song had already been written, recorded and accepted by the masses. Not relevant really.

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.

So wealth wasn't all there was to their agenda, as I said.

Huh?

Where do you get this? You just posited that "if (wealth) was all there was to their agenda they wouldn't have broken up". And I answered with a background that demonstrates that is not true. Nobody goes into something with an agenda of "let's start infighting and split up". That's absurd.

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.

Yes, and that's where it errs. I'm not saying that the whole world is dark and evil, but its existence is undeniable and will be forever there to test us. We can't reason with them. There will always be those who just want to watch the World burn. Imagining it away is no different than wishing it away.

Well then you're back to your self-fulfilling prophecy. That pretty much ensures that whatever demons you imagine around yourself will reign supreme as long as you give them permission to by giving up.

And therein lies the whole point.

So in sum it's not that Imagine doesn't have a point or has an "erroneous" one; it's that you choose not to accept it. Such an ideal is like a water fountain; there for those who wish to drink. You may choose not to drink it, sure. But that doesn't mean it's not there or that it doesn't satiate those who do.

 

[Stashman]

They were the first boy band in history, and similar to bands like boys to men as far as the massive PR campaigns that propelled them into the hearts of millions of teeny boppers around the world. When the Beatles were in concert in the early years they could not even be heard by their audiences. Screaming, fainting young girls were everywhere simply because of the great PR machine created by their manager Brian Epstein. Later in their career there was a riff between McCartney and Lennon over the music they would produce. McCartney wanted to keep churning out meaningless pop songs as they had been doing, but Lennon wanted to use their songs to bring about change. This more than any other reason is what caused the Beatles to break up.

 

[Pogo]

They were the first boy band in history, and similar to bands like boys to men as far as the massive PR campaigns that propelled them into the hearts of millions of teeny boppers around the world. When the Beatles were in concert in the early years they could not even be heard by their audiences. Screaming, fainting young girls were everywhere simply because of the great PR machine created by their manager Brian Epstein. Later in their career there was a riff between McCartney and Lennon over the music they would produce. McCartney wanted to keep churning out meaningless pop songs as they had been doing, but Lennon wanted to use their songs to bring about change. This more than any other reason is what caused the Beatles to break up.

Well I dunno dood, I would differ at the beginning and the end. They weren't "launched by PR"; rather their success created the idea of launching other people by PR. We did this a bit back in 36; they basically showed up at the right time doing the right thing that would strike a nerve. Brian Epstein was a record store manager; he had never managed a band before.

All five of them were swept up by serendipitous circumstances; the mood was ripe. The US had just suffered a deep emotional blow with the Kennedy assassination (on the exact same day their second UK album was released to such demand that their US affiliate label Capitol had to rethink their judgement that the band was "too English" and would never sell) and we were in a deep funk, that is, ripe for something fresh. The breakthrough would come 2½ months later famously on the Ed Sullivan show.

How stale had pop music become, with Elvis having disappeared into the army, with Buddy Holly and a couple of other budding stars dead in a plane crash, with Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis in legal troubles and blacklisted?

This is how stale: on November 22, 1963, the number one song in the U.S. was Dominique by the Singing Nun. That's an atmosphere ripe for revolution. And make no mistake; the Beatles and their sound was wild for its time. The like had never been heard.

They did that, not a PR machine. The PR machine we now know was basically born out of that success, by music "industry" copycats who flocked to England (which before this point was never a source of US pop music) to find the next 'product' in the marketing ploy they called the "British Invasion". But make no mistake; the Beatles and their revolutionary sound, developed largely in Hamburg, was the horse that led that cart.

Brian Epstein was competent enough (though his recording contracts were weak by modern standards) but he was basically lucky to be along for the ride.

Now on part two--

Later in their career there was a riff between McCartney and Lennon over the music they would produce. McCartney wanted to keep churning out meaningless pop songs as they had been doing, but Lennon wanted to use their songs to bring about change. This more than any other reason is what caused the Beatles to break up.

Well -- not really. Lennon and McCartney had been working separately (and occasionally together) since at least 1964 in a sort of friendly rivalry. It's true they had different tastes; Lennon the cynic absolutely detested McCartney's Maxwell's Silver Hammer for instance, and McCartney was less that thrilled with Revolution 9 being on the album, but they were already collaborating as musicians regardless whose song it was, because the success of the band was always more important. Each simply pursued his own material for the goal of collective success.

The dynamics that broke them up had to do with business decisions (a schism having developed between McCartney on one side and the other three on the other), plus Lennon being distracted by his evolving relationship with Yoko -- whose presence in the studio aggravated the whole environment. So it's true they had artistic differences, but those had always existed; what broke them up was the mundane world of business, personal egos and new marriages making four lives more complex than the simpler days of 'all for one and one for all'. It was personal issues, rather than artistic ones, that spelled the end.

In a way this dynamic was ironically and poignantly summed up in the very last Beatles song to be recorded while they were all alive (and the only one recorded in the 1970s), which was Harrison's I Me Mine ("all through the day.. 'I, Me, Mine, I, Me, Mine, I, Me, Mine"). Harrison was sick of it; they all were. The song didn't even have Lennon on it; it was done as an obligation for the film. But it articulates in a simple way the personal rancor that was by then tearing them apart. Three months later McCartney released his own solo album and announced that the band was finished.

Harrison had another tune about the personal strife, which the group recorded while still together but wasn't released until Harrison's solo career; the lyrics are more obvious references to the personal situation:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM72ozezNsg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM72ozezNsg[/ame]

 

[Stashman]

In the beginning they knew that if they were going to succeed it would have to be in the United States. In the six months prior to arriving on American shores the slogan, "The Beatles Are Coming" was everywhere. I have one of these posters today. The PR campaign was so strong that throngs of young girls met them at the airport. This was all before a single show in the States. Before Epstein took over management of the band they were doing up to six shows a day just to make ends meet.
So, I think Epstein was much much important to them than anyone until George Martin began to produce their records.

 

[Pogo]

In the beginning they knew that if they were going to succeed it would have to be in the United States. In the six months prior to arriving on American shores the slogan, "The Beatles Are Coming" was everywhere. I have one of these posters today. The PR campaign was so strong that throngs of young girls met them at the airport. This was all before a single show in the States. Before Epstein took over management of the band they were doing up to six shows a day just to make ends meet.
So, I think Epstein was much much important to them than anyone until George Martin began to produce their records.

He assisted for sure, but Epstein latched on to what was already a phenomenon. By the time Epstein came along they had already done Hamburg. The importance of Hamburg should not be understated; all that work largely created their powerhouse sound. Once they returned to Liverpool that sound was received as magnetic.

Epstein went to the Cavern Club because the phenomenon was already happening. He was in position to get his foot in the door first. He seemed to think a lot of himself but IMO any competent manager would have simply ridden the wave already under him.

All in all if anything made the Beatles irresistible it would be Hamburg. It was a training ground. Once that was done the PR pretty much created itself.