Conservative Beatles Fans
5 views
Skip to first unread message
marcus
Jun 4, 2010, 11:24:37 PM6/4/10
to 1960s
In another newsgroup I frequent, a thread has been going on for the
last few days about how Concervatives can like The Beatles' music, yet
ignore the social conscious aspects of many lyrics. This was my
latest contribution:
The Beatles concept of love was their overpowering message of the
Sixties, and that "love" turned people, who loved them, onto paths of
activism to include being for peace, being against war...seeking
social justice, and racial harmony. It reached the hearts of millions
during the mid-to-late Sixties all over the globe.
How one can listen to songs e.g. "The Word" or "All You Need Is Love",
and then go to an NRA meeting, or anti-immigration demonstration, or
be against Barack Obama mostly because he is African-American(which
the majority of Tea-baggers do) is what confuses me. The openness and
ideas of equality and fair play inherent in those songs, and the songs
about expanding one's mind to see the real "you", mostly by Lennon and
Harrison, are the antithesis of right-wing ideology. Conservatives
are reactionaries against others gaining equality, or any kind of
parity with them. Those who lead conservatives use fear to keep their
followers thinking that people are trying to take power and material
gains from them, and that obeying corporatism and capitalism is the
conventional wisdom that all should aspire. Can one read the lyrics
of "Piggies" and not know who George was referring to, and hear his
utter contempt and indignation towards those who keep others poor and
disenfranchised?
Let me quote from a book entitled, "Things We Said Today: The
Complete Lyrics and a Concordance to The Beatles' Songs, 1962-1970" by
Colin Campbell and Allan Murphy (Pierian Press, 1980), speaking of The
Beatles' lyrics as they developed from romantic love to the oneness of
love:
"The principal difference between the lyrical content of the earlier
and later songs is that the sentiments and attitudes contained in the
earlier ones are taken out of the restrictive context of romantic love
and extrapolated in a self-conscious fashion to life itself....love
comes to be redefined in the later songs and seen less as a 'shared
high' than as a philosophy of life, an attitude which does not require
reciprocation from another in order to survive, but can and indeed
should be held toward all people and all living things. Love in this
sense is also viewed as incompatible with the negative feeling of
jealousy and bitterness which are inherent in romantic attachment.
The song which clearly marks the turning point in this process of
redefinition is 'The Word'
'Say the word and you'll be free, Say the word and be like me, Say the
word I'm thinking of, Have you heard the word is love?'
What is suggested is that love is 'the way' or answer to life's
problems...Obviously, one cannot assume in relation to any of the
songs written after this that whenever the word love appears it refers
merely to boy-girl romance. This does continue to be the archtype of
The Beatles' romanticism, the fundamental analogy for a philosophy of
life...love is thus 'the word' for a positive tenderness and openness
toward the world. The Beatles have faith in love because they see it
as the power that can overcome all obstacles. This is the great theme
of romanticism, that of a world made perfect through the power of
love, and it is the explicit philosophy of The Beatles between 1966
and 1970. This message of salvation is stressed over and over again,
for 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done' through love's
power, everyone can be 'saved' and 'learn how to be you', 'it's easy',
'all you need is love'."
So what I've been trying to say is this, The Beatles in song, singing
about love, stressing its importance, their attitude as stars...filled
with humility, openness, and "we're with you" towards their
fans...their belief in egalitarianism important in the nurturing and
continuing of the great movements of the Sixties...civil rights,
peace, feminism, and environmentalism. And this attitude of love of
man/womankind spoke through their music...and it literally spoke when
they as a unit in interviews in 1966 condemned America's war against
the Vietnamese, and the oppression of Africans in the apartheid of
South Africa.
All of these movements, all of these progressive ventures to make
people more equal, and have a shared justice, is in the air The
Beatles breathed and exhaled in our direction. Conservatism, and its
reactionary nature is the polar opposite of this.
How can such a message, and its inherent thrust towards putting people
first, cleaning up the air and the rivers and the oceans, having
equality among all peoples of the world...how can that message go
unrecognized by conservatives who like The Beatles?
And if they do recognize it, how do they rationalize the obvious
dichotomy within themselves?
last few days about how Concervatives can like The Beatles' music, yet
ignore the social conscious aspects of many lyrics. This was my
latest contribution:
The Beatles concept of love was their overpowering message of the
Sixties, and that "love" turned people, who loved them, onto paths of
activism to include being for peace, being against war...seeking
social justice, and racial harmony. It reached the hearts of millions
during the mid-to-late Sixties all over the globe.
How one can listen to songs e.g. "The Word" or "All You Need Is Love",
and then go to an NRA meeting, or anti-immigration demonstration, or
be against Barack Obama mostly because he is African-American(which
the majority of Tea-baggers do) is what confuses me. The openness and
ideas of equality and fair play inherent in those songs, and the songs
about expanding one's mind to see the real "you", mostly by Lennon and
Harrison, are the antithesis of right-wing ideology. Conservatives
are reactionaries against others gaining equality, or any kind of
parity with them. Those who lead conservatives use fear to keep their
followers thinking that people are trying to take power and material
gains from them, and that obeying corporatism and capitalism is the
conventional wisdom that all should aspire. Can one read the lyrics
of "Piggies" and not know who George was referring to, and hear his
utter contempt and indignation towards those who keep others poor and
disenfranchised?
Let me quote from a book entitled, "Things We Said Today: The
Complete Lyrics and a Concordance to The Beatles' Songs, 1962-1970" by
Colin Campbell and Allan Murphy (Pierian Press, 1980), speaking of The
Beatles' lyrics as they developed from romantic love to the oneness of
love:
"The principal difference between the lyrical content of the earlier
and later songs is that the sentiments and attitudes contained in the
earlier ones are taken out of the restrictive context of romantic love
and extrapolated in a self-conscious fashion to life itself....love
comes to be redefined in the later songs and seen less as a 'shared
high' than as a philosophy of life, an attitude which does not require
reciprocation from another in order to survive, but can and indeed
should be held toward all people and all living things. Love in this
sense is also viewed as incompatible with the negative feeling of
jealousy and bitterness which are inherent in romantic attachment.
The song which clearly marks the turning point in this process of
redefinition is 'The Word'
'Say the word and you'll be free, Say the word and be like me, Say the
word I'm thinking of, Have you heard the word is love?'
What is suggested is that love is 'the way' or answer to life's
problems...Obviously, one cannot assume in relation to any of the
songs written after this that whenever the word love appears it refers
merely to boy-girl romance. This does continue to be the archtype of
The Beatles' romanticism, the fundamental analogy for a philosophy of
life...love is thus 'the word' for a positive tenderness and openness
toward the world. The Beatles have faith in love because they see it
as the power that can overcome all obstacles. This is the great theme
of romanticism, that of a world made perfect through the power of
love, and it is the explicit philosophy of The Beatles between 1966
and 1970. This message of salvation is stressed over and over again,
for 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done' through love's
power, everyone can be 'saved' and 'learn how to be you', 'it's easy',
'all you need is love'."
So what I've been trying to say is this, The Beatles in song, singing
about love, stressing its importance, their attitude as stars...filled
with humility, openness, and "we're with you" towards their
fans...their belief in egalitarianism important in the nurturing and
continuing of the great movements of the Sixties...civil rights,
peace, feminism, and environmentalism. And this attitude of love of
man/womankind spoke through their music...and it literally spoke when
they as a unit in interviews in 1966 condemned America's war against
the Vietnamese, and the oppression of Africans in the apartheid of
South Africa.
All of these movements, all of these progressive ventures to make
people more equal, and have a shared justice, is in the air The
Beatles breathed and exhaled in our direction. Conservatism, and its
reactionary nature is the polar opposite of this.
How can such a message, and its inherent thrust towards putting people
first, cleaning up the air and the rivers and the oceans, having
equality among all peoples of the world...how can that message go
unrecognized by conservatives who like The Beatles?
And if they do recognize it, how do they rationalize the obvious
dichotomy within themselves?
Pearlie
Jun 6, 2010, 6:29:19 PM6/6/10
to 1960s
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/05/2242322/politex-mccartney-takes-swipe.html
The following was copied and pasted from the above site for the Star -
Telegram:
<<It's safe to say former Beatle Paul McCartney isn't missing former
President George W. Bush.
McCartney was at the White House last week, performing a mini-concert
in the East Room and being honored by President Barack Obama, who
presented him with the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song.
He told the president that billions of people are rooting for his
success and, after the TV cameras left, said that "after the last
eight years, it's great to have a president who knows what a library
is."
Construction on the George W. Bush Presidential Center, which will
include a museum, library and policy institute, is expected to begin
later this year at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas.>>
the above is related to your commentary regarding conservative Beatle
fans.
If you scroll down on the above article, click on commets. You will
see how incredibly stupid conservative Beatle fans are.
This is clearly a Republican website. All of the comments on the
article put Paul down for his Bush library comment. Most said they
were big Beatle fans but assert that Paul's politics are "stupid".
One said and I quote, that they "liked John better anyway" .This is
hilarious. Because John made Paul look like a conservative! John
would have swept the floor with Bush. I do not understand people who
grew up knowing what the Beatles and their music stand for and grew
into Conservatives. In a way, Marc, this is the point I've been
trying to get across to you in all my arguments with yout. Many, and
I mean MANY. Abandoned sixties causes, idealism, etc. Many have
developed Alzheimers when it comes to remembering the convictions of
their youth. We are living in a screwed up world, Marc. it is very
sad. .
Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/05/2242322/politex-mccartney-takes-swipe.html#ixzz0q753pImE
marcus
Jun 6, 2010, 7:40:59 PM6/6/10
to 1960s
On Jun 6, 6:29 pm, Pearlie <bpnacaw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> If you scroll down on the above article, click on commets. You will
> see how incredibly stupid conservative Beatle fans are.
big deal about McCartney's comments, even to the point where people
who have rarely, if ever, posted on rec.music.beatles, are now coming
on board to spread their bile
>
> This is clearly a Republican website. All of the comments on the
> article put Paul down for his Bush library comment. Most said they
> were big Beatle fans but assert that Paul's politics are "stupid".
> One said and I quote, that they "liked John better anyway" .This is
> hilarious. Because John made Paul look like a conservative! John
> would have swept the floor with Bush. I do not understand people who
> grew up knowing what the Beatles and their music stand for and grew
> into Conservatives. In a way, Marc, this is the point I've been
> trying to get across to you in all my arguments with yout. Many, and
> I mean MANY. Abandoned sixties causes, idealism, etc. Many have
> developed Alzheimers when it comes to remembering the convictions of
> their youth. We are living in a screwed up world, Marc. it is very
> sad. .
>
I have never denied that some people from our generation "sold
> This is clearly a Republican website. All of the comments on the
> article put Paul down for his Bush library comment. Most said they
> were big Beatle fans but assert that Paul's politics are "stupid".
> One said and I quote, that they "liked John better anyway" .This is
> hilarious. Because John made Paul look like a conservative! John
> would have swept the floor with Bush. I do not understand people who
> grew up knowing what the Beatles and their music stand for and grew
> into Conservatives. In a way, Marc, this is the point I've been
> trying to get across to you in all my arguments with yout. Many, and
> I mean MANY. Abandoned sixties causes, idealism, etc. Many have
> developed Alzheimers when it comes to remembering the convictions of
> their youth. We are living in a screwed up world, Marc. it is very
> sad. .
>
out" (for lack of a better term), but I still think you have an
exaggerated view of this. What is more likely, and I'm not sure if
you have realized this, is that most of the virulent right-wingers who
crop up on the internet are too young to remember the Sixties. This
is 2010. Even if we allow for a five year old in 1964(when The
Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show) to remember and have
participated in the Zeitgeist of the Sixties, that five year old would
be 51 years old now. That means that most people under age 50 have no
"real time" Sixties recollection", and I maintain that many right-
wingers, the ones who quote Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are under age
50.
Pearlie
Jun 7, 2010, 8:32:17 PM6/7/10
to 1960s
You might be right. Fortunately, there are also plenty of people
under 50 who don't feel that way. It wasn't just African Americans
who voted Obama in. It was the youth vote. Whether people grew up in
the 60s or don't remember that time, is not important. What is
important is that intellect does not turn a blind eye to truth. There
are more people on our side then theirs. However, I don't know what
we are going to do about this crumbling world and those tea party
idiots Marc? Their stupidity is boundless. Someone tweeted me about
some republican Alaskan politician who said yesterday that the oil
spill was NOT an environmental disaster. I wish I could enroll
everyone of them into Common Sense 101. But I don't think they'd do
well in college. There are plenty of voices out there, Marc.
Communal awareness is having a come back. BTW do you have a twitter
account. At first I thought it was stupid and pointless, but the more
people I follow, the more intelligent sources, and information links
I'm led to. It's quite addicting. Also, do you ever watch Bill Maher
on HBO? There is hope--. He's a little smug, but he is smart. Most
importantly, the guests on his show are progressively brilliant.
under 50 who don't feel that way. It wasn't just African Americans
who voted Obama in. It was the youth vote. Whether people grew up in
the 60s or don't remember that time, is not important. What is
important is that intellect does not turn a blind eye to truth. There
are more people on our side then theirs. However, I don't know what
we are going to do about this crumbling world and those tea party
idiots Marc? Their stupidity is boundless. Someone tweeted me about
some republican Alaskan politician who said yesterday that the oil
spill was NOT an environmental disaster. I wish I could enroll
everyone of them into Common Sense 101. But I don't think they'd do
well in college. There are plenty of voices out there, Marc.
Communal awareness is having a come back. BTW do you have a twitter
account. At first I thought it was stupid and pointless, but the more
people I follow, the more intelligent sources, and information links
I'm led to. It's quite addicting. Also, do you ever watch Bill Maher
on HBO? There is hope--. He's a little smug, but he is smart. Most
importantly, the guests on his show are progressively brilliant.
marcus
Jun 7, 2010, 10:13:37 PM6/7/10
to 1960s
On Jun 7, 8:32 pm, Pearlie <bpnacaw...@aol.com> wrote:
> You might be right. Fortunately, there are also plenty of people
> under 50 who don't feel that way. It wasn't just African Americans
> who voted Obama in. It was the youth vote. Whether people grew up in
> the 60s or don't remember that time, is not important. What is
> important is that intellect does not turn a blind eye to truth. There
> are more people on our side then theirs. However, I don't know what
> we are going to do about this crumbling world and those tea party
> idiots Marc? Their stupidity is boundless. Someone tweeted me about
> some republican Alaskan politician who said yesterday that the oil
> spill was NOT an environmental disaster. I wish I could enroll
> everyone of them into Common Sense 101. But I don't think they'd do
> well in college. There are plenty of voices out there, Marc.
> Communal awareness is having a come back. BTW do you have a twitter
> account. At first I thought it was stupid and pointless, but the more
> people I follow, the more intelligent sources, and information links
> I'm led to. It's quite addicting. Also, do you ever watch Bill Maher
> on HBO? There is hope--. He's a little smug, but he is smart. Most
> importantly, the guests on his show are progressively brilliant.
baggers, you will find a racist. The thing that irritates them more
than anything is that the person occupying the White House is a black
man. That's it...right there, they are pissed off because they have
been handed a big reminder that WASPs can't continue to dominate
everything. They feel threatened because Obama, the African-American
president said this, he did that...if he were Caucasian, they wouldn't
be so critical, but they have been on his case since the day he won
the election in 2008.
Personally, I think the Tea-Baggers are a flash in the pan...they're
all hot air being supported by heavy-duty right wing money...as soon
as those right-wing leaders tire of them, they will be history. If
the Democrats lose some seats in the House and Senate this Fall, it
owes more to the typical disaffection from the party holding the White
House in off-year races. That has been happening for sometime.
As for twitter, you summed up my feelings about it, in terms of me
wanting it with the following words, "It's quite addicting". I have
wasted a good portion of my life on the internet over the past ten
years, and I realize that it is because I easily become "addicted" to
certain websites or newsgroups. Although, I wouldn't say I'm
powerless against it, for the past several months, I've been trying to
wean myself from much internet activity. That's why I won't do
Facebook or twitter...I would get too involved with them, and not
spend enough time on the truly deserving priorities of my life, which
are many these days.
That doesn't mean I won't keep up with this Discussion Group or email
friends, but the last thing I need to do is have some other time
consuming cyber world thing to do.
I have no prob whatsoever if other people engage in those things...but
it's just not do-a-ble for me.
>
Pearlie
Jun 9, 2010, 12:13:02 PM6/9/10
to 1960s
<<<<<
I still say that if one scratches the surface of each of these tea-
baggers, you will find a racist. The thing that irritates them more
than anything is that the person occupying the White House is a black
man. That's it...right there, they are pissed off because they have
been handed a big reminder that WASPs can't continue to dominate
everything. They feel threatened because Obama, the African-American
president said this, he did that...if he were Caucasian, they
wouldn't
be so critical, but they have been on his case since the day he won
the election in 2008.
I agree with how you feel about the internet. I'm a very agreeable
person as of late, aren'tt I? But seriously, the internet has
created the biggest diversion from life. I mean, we may just as well
enter coffins early and close the lids on ourselves. There are so
many things that I rush around doing as a result of sitting in front
of a screen like a zombie.... The internet is the downfall of
society.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages