# The Beatles' Philosophy Examined



## PainefulTruth

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':

[ame=http://youtu.be/0wmKXQP_3zM]Because - Across the Universe - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## editec

Philosophy?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQxzbscE2m4]The Beatles - Why Don't We Do It In The Road - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## DGS49

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.


----------



## PainefulTruth

editec said:


> Philosophy?
> 
> The Beatles - Why Don't We Do It In The Road - YouTube



Oh yeah, I can't be expected to remember them all at once.

[ame=http://youtu.be/3KYIrRILwlE]Across The Universe - Why Don't We Do It in the Road.flv - YouTube[/ame]





DGS49 said:


> 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.



The point, sir, is that while what you say is true, that doesn't stop people from worshiping them, or others like them, as idols.  And I gotta say they had a lot more going for them than the current crop of vapid American Idols.


----------



## Katzndogz

There's no philosophy behind the Beatles.


----------



## Billo_Really

Katzndogz said:


> There's no philosophy behind the Beatles.


Don't you dare dis das Beatles!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

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?


----------



## Dajjal

Katzndogz said:


> 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.


----------



## pacer

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


----------



## PainefulTruth

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.



pacer said:


> 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."


----------



## pacer

PainefulTruth said:


> It's a feel good song with no foundation in reality, playing on emotions running on blind faith.


It is not simply a feel good song.  John Lennon had no use for organized religion.  He advocated global harmony, unity, and equality could be attained if we completely eliminated geopolitical borders, organized religion, and economic class, among other things.

*"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]

Wiki


----------



## pacer

PainefulTruth said:


> 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.


----------



## lakeview

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

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


----------



## hobelim

pacer said:


> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## DGS49

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

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

Priceless.


----------



## DGS49

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.


----------



## Dajjal

Ok! you guys can debunk John Lennon if you want, but George Harrison was a genuinely spiritual man. He made a significant contribution to the Beatles, then wrote a lot of spiritual songs after the Beatles broke up. As I said he donated a large house to the Krishna movement. I know because I visited it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNGnIKUdMI]George Harrison-My Sweet Lord (Studio Version) Original - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dajjal

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h10_ZxLQJHg]George Harrison ~ Hare Krishna Mantra *Animated Version* - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dajjal

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wZIpRfqaco&list=PL9BE2818AEF703CD1&index=8]George Harrison ~ Give Me Love - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dajjal

Here is a classic from George while he was still with the Beatles.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljnv3KGtcyI]Within You Without You- The Beatles - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 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

Dajjal said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

DGS49 said:


> 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

pacer said:


> *"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. 



pacer said:


> 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.



lakeview said:


> 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.



hobelim said:


> 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

whitehall said:


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



Has anyone even hinted at such a suggestion.


----------



## Dajjal

whitehall said:


> 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

Dajjal said:


> 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

Dajjal said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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]
Click to expand...


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

Answer in white font here: Tommy Smothers


----------



## Pogo

PainefulTruth said:


> 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

DGS49 said:


> 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

PainefulTruth said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...


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

lakeview said:


> 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

Pogo said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Pogo

hobelim said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

DGS49 said:


> 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:



PainefulTruth said:


> 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.



PainefulTruth 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.


----------



## Pogo

PainefulTruth said:


> Dajjal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?_
Click to expand...


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

Indeependent said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct but everybody IS entitled to their own opinion.
> I love the Beatles and my wife loves the Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Pogo

edthecynic said:


> 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

Pogo said:


> 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?



Pogo said:


> Taking this out of order:
> 
> 
> 
> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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



> PainefulTruth 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.
Click to expand...


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

PainefulTruth said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.



PainefulTruth said:


> 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?
Click to expand...


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.



PainefulTruth said:


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


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.




PainefulTruth 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Stashman said:


> 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

Stashman said:


> 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.


----------

