There’s a new biography of the Beatles–a THOUSAND PAGE BIOGRAPHY–and in it the Fab Four don’t come across as all that "Fab."
Except maybe for Ringo.
According to Time Magazine’s reviewer:
The Fab Four hated the silly, lovable mop-top image they created, and
on that score alone they would probably love Spitz’s book. He marshals
a staggering mass of research in support of the conclusion, broadly
speaking, that Lennon was a drug-addled, attention-hungry rageoholic
who picked fights and cheated on his wife; Paul McCartney was a smarmy,
manipulative charmer; and George Harrison was dour and sour. Before you
lose faith entirely, it turns out Ringo really was just a lovable
goofball.
Well, at least there was one lovable goofball!
Or maybe more than one.
I haven’t read the book–or studied their lives in detail–so I really can’t say.
“Lennon was a drug-addled, attention-hungry rageoholic who picked fights and cheated on his wife; Paul McCartney was a smarmy, manipulative charmer; and George Harrison was dour and sour.”
No big surprises there. Before the Beatles, there was almost a tacet contract between celebrities and the public – the celebs would try to set a good example, (at least in public) and people would, in turn, buy their stuff. The Press kept the celebs private lives private to a much greater degree than today, though gossip rags have always been popular.
The Beatles seem to be an early example of celebs who broke the contract, who just didn’t want the JOB of “role model”, perhaps under the influence of Bob Dylan. Dylan made it clear to everybody that he hated his celebrity status. He didn’t want to be the “voice of a whole generation”, and didn’t care at all for being a folk hero to disaffected youth. He thought the whole thing was stupid, if you believe his statements at the time.
The Beatles seem to have inherited Dylan’s patronising loathing of the fans.
1000 pages works out to about 100 pages per year of the Beatles, if I have my chronology correct.
Kill your radios!! Rock and Roll ought to come out of every Catholic’s musical “diet.” It excites our passions and its purveyors tend to be unwholesome people. If you don’t believe me, try not listening to it for 6 months and see how it changes your life! I did it and became much calmer, no more road raging, a greater internal peace. Palestrina is much better for the soul than the Beatles. Afterall, wasn’t it John Lennon who said that the Beatles were more popular than our Lord? If that is the “Revolution” the Beatles laud…forget about it!
Well in my book anyone with a big enough heart to make an asp of himself narrating a cartoon for the under 5’s can’t be all bad. Ringo ~ the unsung hero of Thomas the Tank Engine (not the movie – that was Alec Baldwin).
I’ve gone of Paul McCartney ever since he started dating and subsequently married a model young enough to be his daughter, shortly after his wife of many years, had died.
Having said that, Heather Mills (now Heather Mills McCartney) did indeed garner my support, however, when J.Lo’s bouncer pushed her out of the way as she protested at her ‘Fur Frenzy’ outside J.Lo’s hotel, (the girl get’s my support on that issue if nothing else)…anyway…here I go a rambling again, where was I? Oh yes, so anyway, the bouncer pushed Mrs McCartney aside rather forcibly apparantly, which saw her stumble and fall and lose her prosthetic leg which was yanked off rather painfully.
Had to have hurt.
Lennon, well, I liked his hippy dippy music but I thought Yoko’s lyrics on their later albums, was completely chronic.
And George Harrison, I really liked him. He had lot’s of hair and wrote wicked lyrics, what’s not to like?
God Bless
The Beatles were responsible for too much satanic music (yes, i said it!), in my mind. I hear though that John Lennon almost came back to Christianity by watching televangelists for a while until Yoko discouraged him in that.
Jay,
IIRC, both John Lennon and (Sir) Paul McCartney were baptized in the Catholic Church. I pray for their souls, and I invite anyone reading to join me in that prayer.
The quote about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus is I think, much misunderstood. Lennon wasn’t bragging so much as describing the obvious idolatry of the hysterical crowds that met the Beatles everywhere.
I was pretty sure that John Lennon was the only Beatle baptized in the Catholic Church. While Paul and George came from families that were originally Catholic, I think they were baptized and raised in the Anglican Church.
that Lennon was a drug-addled, attention-hungry rageoholic who picked fights and cheated on his wife; Paul McCartney was a smarmy, manipulative charmer; and George Harrison was dour and sour.
I agree with Tim; this part is hardly news.
Dylan made it clear to everybody that he hated his celebrity status. He didn’t want to be the “voice of a whole generation”, and didn’t care at all for being a folk hero to disaffected youth. He thought the whole thing was stupid, if you believe his statements at the time.
The Beatles seem to have inherited Dylan’s patronising loathing of the fans.
But I’m not sure how disliking celebrity and not wanting to be a folk hero translates into “patronising loathing of the fans.”
I wouldn’t want either in his shoes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean hating the fans.
Paul McCartney… started dating and subsequently married a model young enough to be his daughter, shortly after his wife of many years, had died.
It is said that men who loved their wives and had happy marriages are more likely to remarry when widowed.
IIRC, both John Lennon and (Sir) Paul McCartney were baptized in the Catholic Church. I pray for their souls, and I invite anyone reading to join me in that prayer.
I like to pray for Jimmy Buffett (still alive) and Jerry Garcia (not still alive).
pha,
The concern was not because he had remarried, but because of the swiftness with which he did so. McCartney’s children were reportedly ‘disgusted’ that their father was involved with a supermodel before their mother was ‘cold in her grave’, I believe it was said.
Having ‘lost’ my daughters father when she was a baby, I know that it took me 3 years before I would even consider having a meal out with a man, let alone a relationship. I know that grief is different for everyone and I can appreciate that he may have come to terms with his loss more quickly than I did mine. But it was reported over here in England in such a ‘tacky’ way, y’know. His children wouldn’t even talk to their father, let alone meet the new woman in his life, perhaps he could have been more sensitive to the grief that his children were experiencing ?
God Bless.
“Paul McCartney was a smarmy, manipulative charmer”
Was?
I’ve always understood that one of the reasons the Beatles so disliked their (early) image is because they came to realize it was a bubble-gum sort of novelty, comparable to a boy-band gimmick of today. Musically, they reached a point where they wanted to get past all of that. Say what you will about the Beatles, but there was definitely a lot of creative energy – and raw talent – at work in the group.
And that’s precisely why the Beatles – like Dylan, whose work is far more enduring – shunned the whole image thing the media and even their own record labels were trying to push. It’s extremely confining to the creative process when you feel like you have to “be” something. You ultimately run the risk of becoming a parody of yourself.
As for Jay’s comments about rock music in general: Granted, there’s a lot of junk rock out there. But we can’t paint with such broad strokes; if it weren’t for Dylan’s consistent, career-spanning insistence that we “Look up, look up – seek your Maker – ‘fore Gabriel blows his horn,” I might not be studying for the Catholic priesthood.
Having ‘lost’ my daughters father when she was a baby, I know that it took me 3 years before I would even consider having a meal out with a man, let alone a relationship.
You missed my point.
When a woman who loves her husband and has a happy marriage is widowed, she is less likely to remarry at all. If she does consider it, she goes about it quite slowly.
The opposite is true for men. The more they loved their wives and the happier they were in marriage, the more likely they are to remarry, and the sooner the beter.
Widowed women, studies show, are both more likely to wait and less likely to remarry than men.
“When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom…”
What’s wrong with that?
I know Paul said it was about his biological mother. But, my mom’s name is Robin, so when I hear it Mother Mary is the BVM!!!
The Beatles, Bob Dylan and a long list of other rock bands were united in at least one singular mission. Subvert the faith of the youth of America and other countries. Wars, subversive rock music, urban planning as ethnical cleansing, birth control, and now the internet have all been programs of social engineering to subvert Christian society , with a heavy emphasis on Catholics.
The hidden hand behind all such efforts, is the Spirit of anti Christ.
“When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom…”
What’s wrong with that?
“Let it be”… Luke 1:38.
So many misconceptions, I don’t know where to begin. Don’t mistake my wordiness for vanity; there are a lot of things to address and I couldn’t decide what to leave out.
First off, with all due respect, you know that the media lies, smears, and puts spins on things, don’t you? Since when do we trust them?
Look how Linda McCartney was treated in the beginning and years beyond, when Paul and Linda were actually the model of a loving and devoted couple among their peers. Their divorce was being predicted until people simply got bored with predicting it.
After Linda’s death, Paul actually needed to be on antidepressants for a while. He’s got a tragic side, evident throughout his entire history. He lost his mother at around 14. He was poor. The depression of the year after the Beatles split up is described by Linda as downright frightening.
Maybe he’s one of those types who likes to keep the gloom to himself? That’s just what the world needs–more narcisstic celebrities airing out their ugliest thoughts and depressing everybody.
Ukok, I know the Press didn’t warm up to Heather either, but are you taking them too seriously? Paul did grieve for a year and a month before he met Heather. One year a pretty standard, respectful, and socially acceptable time frame.
Even after their marriage some years later he was still dedicating songs at concerts to Linda as well as Heather.
The kids were upset and wouldn’t even talk to their father? Remember, Stella designed Heather Mills’ wedding dress. Reports that actually manage to get a quote from the “kids” have them saying pretty nice things. 2001’s Wingspan video footage of Mary McCartney interviewing her father looks like they have a good and loving relationship to me.
Paul’s probably a better judge of who Heather is inside, than we are. I read Heather’s biography. I have to say, she’s anything but a flake. My only reservation is her past history of getting bored, giving up on something, and moving on. But Paul is not exactly stupid, and it’s not exactly my business to worry about it. And people lauded throughout history have made much worse choices for partners.
And that’s just Paul.
George was also gentle and devoted to God. We’d prefer he’d have been Catholic, but the devil was George’s enemy just the same. He was writing mainstream music for and about God when it was very “uncool” to do so.
John was apparently wrapping up a confused past and moving on, until his life was shortened for him. His final album was actually cheerful.
Call them what you will, but it’s harder than not, to find songs with any messages in them that you can consider evil. There are a few outbursts from the growing pains they had, but many of their songs were about love, loving other people, playful third-person narratives, daily struggles with the greedy people associated with them, and just normal ups and downs anyone can relate to.
There are quite a few presumptuous rumors about the meanings behind some songs that are patently untrue. When someone mentions such a rumour, you know straight off that they’re not a fan and haven’t read any biographies, or else they’d know better. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is NOT about LSD. And if some murderous wacko detects a satanic message in Helter Skelter, hand him back his tinfoil hat, and don’t let it get to you.
They had their share of troubles, but what I recommend you do, is borrow a copy of the Anthology DVDs. Listen to them tell their own stories, first-hand, with voices of maturity that they didn’t have back then when they were so young. Be prepared for the fact that they are not Catholics, and get past it. Listen to them remember John as a friend they love. If they can get past the bickering, so can everybody else. Tug of War is an older McCartney album ca. 1980 with a touching song about John that can bring tears to your eyes. George’s All Those Years Ago was a happier dedication mostly in remembrance of the good times.
As for listening to rock and roll, if feel that you can’t handle it without endangering your soul, then don’t. And make a careful decision about what your kids can handle. But it’s not objectively evil to do so, and not everyone is in danger of losing their souls to rock and roll. I recommend Jimmy’s excellent article Here.
They wrote hundreds of songs, and thousands if you count their solo work. I looked through my songlist last night and it’s amazing, how the vast majority of them are not objectionable in the tiniest bit!
Naomi’s right about Lennon’s Jesus comment. It had to do with the irony of Beatle idolatry; it was not a comparison with our Lord.
Tim J: You have half right about the image thing, but half-right isn’t exactly the whole story. Rock and Roll was in the process of being “tamed”, after a period of wreckless idols and teddy boys. A lot of new artists were being suited up. The Beatles decided to play along, but it’s no big secret that they wanted to be rock and rollers. That’s not exactly selling out. They’re remembered for the music, not their suits.
In the beginning, they had to fight to put their own music on their records instead of singing things other people wrote. They just wanted to be who they were before the suits. Later, they adopted “mod” suits, and then they dropped them altogether. They were growing up and becoming more distinct from one another, and no one can blame them for that.
By the way, I tend to suspect that Paul’s got a secret–that he’s religious. I heard Follow Me from his latest album. Look up those lyrics. “That’s a Christian song”, I said. During an interview, the most he’ll publicly say is that it’s “quasi-religious”, but I see something more there. It can’t hurt to pray for him.
And before I go, please consider this: These people were/are famous beyond comprehension. Life for them is/was a daily battle for normalcy. It’s surprising that they are not mentally deranged. Paul, in particular, has a gracious way with fans that stems from gratitude. Google these words, with the quotes around them: “I met Paul McCartney”. Look at all of the accounts–Paul is anything but fan-loathing. If you want to meet Paul McCartney and have a bad experience, the Internet is surely the place to spread the news around. But try to find one.
I do not idolize them, but they are our favorite musicians in this household, and celebrities are people too. The Christian principles that apply to anybody about unjustly smearing someone’s reputation apply to celebrities as well. Let’s try not to fall for that sin.
Jenny,
I’m just giving you the popular Brit opinion from my ‘neck of the woods’ on ground level at the time of it all kicking off, paparazzi were running stories all over the media and you couldn’t get away from it for months.
I have given a personal opinion like others here, and that is that I felt it was too soon for him to get involved with someone else after the death of Linda Mcartney, but as with everything else that any celebrity does, it bothered me for approximately 0.5 seconds. I’m simply responding to a post here to kill some time when I should be doing more important things but really can’t be bothered, it’s not like I spend my real time worrying about Mr McCartney’s marital situation.
Pha,
I didn’t miss your point, we’re approaching this from two different levels, yours is statistic, mine is one of sensitivity. I don’t generally work out how I feel about a thing, statistically, and while I can see your point I still don’t necessarily agree with it. Almost all widows I know personally or know of, have remarried, except in cases where the female was positively geriatric.
I’s be interested in reading your statistic’s though, are they worldwide?
God Bless.
Ukok, do you mean “too soon” in the way of “disrespectful”, or in the way of “psychologically not ready”?
“When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom…”
What’s wrong with that?
“Let it be”… Luke 1:38.”
Oh! That’s such a beautiful song. ^_^
And who could forget Hey Jude, a great song about that wonderful apostle. 😉
Jenny-
My comments about the Beatles relationship to their fans was not meant to imply that they were anything but extremely talented, creative and original.
I think you hit the nail on the head in pointing out that it was the expectations of the public that threatened to hold them back creatively. Their fans were mostly teeny-boppers, and the Fab 4 had to reject them, in a sense, to move forward with their music.
Judging by the behavior of the fans (for instance, at Shea Stadium), it is understandable that the Beatles might look on them with some loathing, and not a little fear.
After all, fame literally killed John.
Sorry, that last post was mine, and not my sweet wife’s.
That reminds me though, Paul’s “Martha My Dear” draws on biblical imagery too, and in a cute way:
“Martha my dear,
Though I spend my days in conversation, please
Remember me…”
There is nothing good about the music the Beatles made. Some of their songs are satanic.
I find many to be immoral and anti Catholic.
Rock music is by definition anti Cathlic and
Anti God.
I didn’t miss your point, we’re approaching this from two different levels, yours is statistic, mine is one of sensitivity.
You are sensitive, perhaps, to the widowed woman’s tendency, but you are not showing sensitivity to the widowed man’s.
Remarriage, and especially earlier remarriage, by a widowed man almost always indicates profound love for the first wife and happiness in marriage. Such qualities should not be slighted or scorned, but appreciated.
Southcoast-
“Paul McCartney was a smarmy, manipulative charmer”
“Was?”
Yeah, “was”… didn’t you know?… PAUL IS DEAD!
Just check out the cover of “Abbey Road”!
28IF!
“that Lennon was a drug-addled, attention-hungry rageoholic who picked fights and cheated on his wife”
Now “Imagine” makes more sense! He was high when he wrote it! 🙂
I think that the Beatles– and many popular artists– illustrate that talent and excellence, musical or otherwise, are good in and of themselvese. Whether or not the Beatles were religious doesn’t affect the “goodness” of their music. That’s not to say that it didn’t affect the kind of music that they wrote. Of course it did. But the thing about great art is that it can be considered apart from its creator. “David” would be just as breathtaking if Michelangelo had been a Hindu who sculpted Judeo-Christian art for pay. To a lesser extent, “Let it Be” and “Hey Jude” are Christian songs in the same way that socratic philosophy, or the Phoenix myth, are Christian– they are great art precisely because they redound with truth, regardless of the intent or misconceptions of their creators.
clarification: I’m not saying that Michelangelo would have been able to scuplt “David” so powerfully had he not been raised with the story of David and belonged to a culture imbued with the significance of David’s story and legacy. What I am saying is that if he had been raised outside Christendom and had still managed to create “David” exactly the way it is now, the Judeo-Christian significance of the sculpture would not be lessened by virtue of the artist’s personal religious convictions. Art, when it is true, transcends the artist– that’s why its so powerful and wonderful.
Great points Francis, I agree. Where or not it was Paul’s intention to write an explicitly religious song in “Let it Be”, I will always hold it to myself as such and enjoy it on that level. ^_^
There’s often a triangular relationship between Beauty, Goodness, and Truth, as evidenced by our Catholic faith itself.
“Truth is Beauty, Beauty Truth,
That is all ye know on earth,
and all ye need to know.”
– John Keats
Beauty is truth– but of course we must understand properly what beauty is. And there IS a good deal of skillfully-made music and art that is not true. Exhibit A, for me anyway, is Eminem– I think he’s an incredibly talented rapper, and whenever I hear his music I enjoy it, so long as I can’t understand the words. But clearly he’s using his skills in a way that’s not good– that’s not in the service of truth or beauty.
But when a talented artist brings a genuinely human (i.e. unperverted, if not entirely sanctified) perspective to his work, then he (or she of course) is likely to create highly “baptizeable” material– as is the case with Let it Be. This is also true of many of the pop-rock songs I hear on the radio. One of my favorites is Michelle Branch’s song (can’t remember the title) with the words: “‘Cause you’re everything to me / when I catch my breath it’s you I breathe / you’re everything I know that makes me believe / I’m not alone.”
When I strum my guitar and sing “Let It Be”, I sing it as a hymn to Our Lady. Paul wrought better than he thought.
Right, that’s an important caveat, Francis.
“When I strum my guitar and sing “Let It Be”, I sing it as a hymn to Our Lady.”
Me too.
Bill912 and Ryan C,
Come on over to my house and we’ll jam out Let it Be, Immaculate Mary, and Hail Holy Queen!!!
(Is jam the right word?)
Once upon a time, a truly abominable live-action LOTR adaptation was planned, whose producers wanted to take out anything Western-Civ-ish – Kabuki-ize the Elves, give Saruman and Gandalf an African-shaman-style “duel of verbal curses”, you name it – starring the Beatles as the four hobbits. we were saved from this monstrosity, it is said, because Lennon wanted to play Frodo and McCartney refused to be his Sam. So I owe McCartney one. On top of that, he seems to’ve had a major hand in most of the Beatles’ songs that I actually halfway like, and he and his late wife and their children practice what they preach on the vegan/animal protection front far more consistently and with more inconvenience to themselves than most.
Starr did some incredibly cheesy b-movies, knowing full well what they were, which usually indicates some measure of humility and unpretentiousness.
For the men who gave the world Imagine and My Sweet Lord, I have little but contempt.
we were saved from this monstrosity, it is said, because Lennon wanted to play Frodo and McCartney refused to be his Sam.
Clearly neither of them understood the story very well, because Sam, not Frodo, is the ultimate hero.
Hello,
Unless something’s changed since the 1990s, Paul is a lacto-ovo vegetarian. He said, “I don’t eat anything that has a face”. Their recipe books include dishes with cheese and I think, eggs.
As a Catholic, I know that it is permissible to eat meat. But it seems beyond our own dignity, let alone the animals’ as creatures of God, to raise and kill animals so inhumanely, as is the most common practice. Benedict 16 is quoted as saying so. Maybe that’s where “in_humane_” comes from, I don’t know. In any case, it seems fitting.
Paul and Linda at least got a lot of people thinking. I don’t have any perfect, practical solution yet, but I started to buy eggs from free-range chickens and hope to find a cruelty-free outlet for meat. (These eggs actually seem to taste better, by the way. I hadn’t known they would. I get hungry for them.)
It seems to be the same way with fur. If we lived in a society where it was necessary to wear animal pelts and animals were killed quickly before they knew what happened to them, that would be one thing. But I know the ways in which many of these animals are killed and I just can’t see a justification for trotting around in designer fur when you have no idea where it came from and just want to show off how glamourous you are.
There’s a difference between being the master of creation (God) and being stewards of it (us), with the permission to use them to our advantage if we have a need (humanely, that is). I think a lot of people who scoff at others who are more sensitive to the humane issues, have a bit of a “master” complex, and would benefit from a little soul-searching on why their consciences tend to be so lax and permissive on the issue. A rebound attitude, maybe? Not wanting to be mistaken in public for a bleeding heart on the complete opposite end of the spectrum?
If we could do anything we wanted to animals for any reason and in any unnecessarily cruel fashion, we wouldn’t be stewards anymore. Just “users”, and disrespectful, unappreciative ones at that. The animals reflect the glory of God, and whatever we do with them should also include some element of deference to that, the way I see it.
Just my 2 cents.