It is also the first time I have ever seen the photo at bottom-- i very much suspect that it is photoshopped.
I suspected the same. Here is the original image. Obviously the day they received their MBEs.
Well, let's strike that one from the exhibit list then.
Now there's merely the matter of everything else... The obvious abortion imagery on the "Yesterday and Today" cover, the glorification of Aleister Crowley on Sgt Pepper, the embrace of Hindu diabolism, the "Christianity will disappear, we're bigger than Jesus" blasphemy, Lennon's going on to write the definitive anthem of atheism, and, if the Tony Sheridan quote is not sufficiently well-sourced, there is always this, which I take from Bishop (then Father) Richard Williamson article which Roscoe cites above in their defense:
And here is a description of the Beatles in 1964 by a Derrick Taylor: "They're completely anti-Christ. I mean, I am anti-Christ as well, but they're so anti-Christ they shock me, which isn't an easy thing" (MM, p. 101).
Taylor was the Beatles' press officer, and there he was, as early as 1964 - before the "bigger than Jesus" controversy, before Sgt. Pepper, before the Hare Krishna nonsense, before "Imagine," back when the Beatles were merely "making happy sounds" as puff-puff-forget-to-pass Roscoe would have it - reporting that he, Taylor, a man who describes himself as "anti-Christ" is shocked by just how anti-Christ his employers the Beatles were at that time.
Roscoe, disingenuous (if not outright dishonest) as ever in the defense of his vices, takes one surgically removed sliver of a quotation from Bishop Williamson and rests his entire defense of the Beatles on it. Here is the quote in full, for anyone who's interested in things like context and meaning:
As for the other main elements in music - harmony and melody—certain rock artists are not lacking in talent. For example, the Beatles in some of their pieces show a true musical art. But rock in no way values these elements or this art, because they involve too much the superior and spiritual part of the soul. Thus, jazz has a melodic interest, but rock has none or only a little. What counts is the animal beat.
I'd encourage any and all interested to read the entire thing and see if you come away with the notion that Bishop Williamson is endorsing the Beatles in any way: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1067
As anyone with an even nominally functioning Sensus Catholicus can tell you, it is the evil works of art which are technically and artistically well done which are the most dangerous of all. After all, which is the more deadly vehicle for arsenic: a plate of stale, moldy slop; or a magnificently prepared cake, beautifully decorated with an artist's touch?
This is a very fine post, BTNYC. And I dare say you make points that no one in their right mind could ever disagree with. I really enjoyed the article by then Father Williamson, very well done even if it does contain some slight inaccuracies. However, having grown up in the 20th Century I can assure that I am not in my right mind.
It is indeed frightening to view film of teenage girls screaming and, I have read, even wetting themselves at these spectacles. I guess my question is what on earth made these girls ready to engage in such a way? Obviously something was wrong with them before the Beatles came on the scene. I have been trying to figure this one out for quite awhile and I am pretty much clueless.
But it happened before with the bobby soxers and Frank Sinatra in the '40s. Again, what was already inside these girls that they reacted in such a way? Of course they were repressed in some ways. I wasn't there, so I don't know. But obviously there were not well formed to live and breath a correctly ordered Catholic life. But you could hardly call it their fault.
The microphone and the public address system did funny things to people in mass rallies starting in the '30s, the age of fascism. Think about Hitler at Nuremberg and Mussolini. People simultaneously felt one with the crowd and that the speaker was also speaking to each one of them personally, at the level of their individual souls. Again, the microphone did strange wonders with Sinatra, known as the bedroom crooner, because you could hear his voice in the intimacy of your home vis a vis radio transmission.
In short, BTNYC, the Mass Age replaced the Mass. I have often entertained the thought that radio alone takes the place of God in the mass audience no matter what the content may be. Think about the power inherent in such a device. It is the voice of authority in news and advertisements. It is in your car, at the beach, in your home, maybe even at work. I don't think people even think in these terms, but I would promote the idea that whomever is on the radio is the voice of God for most people because it is the voice of authority and the means to create ideas; mythos, modern ethos, logos, and pathos. We do not hear God speak, physically, at the Baptism of our Lord, or at the Transfiguration, to name a few instances, but we do hear a voices telling us what is going on at Pearl Harbor or on the beaches of Normandy.
I think what I wrote above is what McLuhan really meant when he said the media is the message. It doesn't really matter what is on, it is the power inherent in the technology itself and how ordinary human beings interact with it. And I would say to you that most human beings treat that technology as a miracle and thus as God himself. In the '50s just about every boy of a certain age had to have a Davy Crockett hat because of a TV show. Was that any better than collecting Beatle records? Actually I would say it is worse as it is completely mindless and the cheapest form of imitation. I know you would see it as trite and stupid, but some Trads and many Christians would view it as harmless and good clean fun. Well, these were the training grounds to get these same children to embrace the next big thing, The Beatles.
Also, these Beatle concerts and many other rock and roll shows definitely took on the same flavor and characteristics as Nuremberg, except they didn't have the nαzιs. Some might argue that they are Communists. Hardly. They became incredibly wealthy and there is no doubt that everyone could see it as a business enterprise. I have also entertained the idea that it may have been from Tavistock. Or that it may have simply been a way for the British Empire to still have an empire with a new style of colonialism, a colonialism of the mind. They did call it the British Invasion, now didn't they? And EMI, the recording studio and distributors of musical material on records did have some type of military background. I forgot what they made, but I am quite sure this is a fact. What Bishop Williamson misses by being correctly concerned about the sɛҳuąƖ component and the possible God hating component of rock music, is the fact that this was a new style of military operation.
Interestingly, the Church completely dropped the ball at the same time. I don't think many of the Churchmen thought like I am currently thinking, but I believe in a subliminal way they understood they could not compete with this new beast. This amalgamation of recording industry, radio, TV, cinema, etc. They must of inherently understood that they had been replaced by this Mass Media Age and all the possibilities for the marriage of artists and businessmen to simultaneously herd a mass audience and speak to each one on an individual basis. Where else do we have such an intimate marriage of the two; large collective and individual understanding except in the Mass and in the Sacraments? In my opinion, this was the real reason for the New Mass and the use of the vernacular, the priest facing the "audience" etc.
As I mentioned yesterday, I left this Church of the '60s in the early '70s. What did I replace it with? Why rock and roll of course. I am not proud of this, nor am I ashamed. It was the only outlet available for me. I listened to music that had elements of social justice, anti war, treating others with respect or just a good song. The Beatles were the litmus test. They saved me from wandering into truly evil and banal material like KISS or an AC/DC. Their music is Aryan, you and everyone else must never forget that. It is economical and accomplishes what it wants to accomplish in 2 to 3 minutes. That in itself is an art. There are no hypnotic drug induced 20 minute drum solos or violin bow playing guitar solos like a Led Zeppelin.
As far as this notion that The Beatles were anti-Christ, yes that is disturbing. But remember, they too were children of the Second World War. Liverpool was bombed by the Germans and they played in the rubble. How many soldiers returned home atheists due to the blood bath of that war? Maybe they saw the failure of Christianity and the hypocrisy of Anglicanism and its complete weakness to stop that war. That, my friend, is the extent of their anti-Christian attitude in my opinion. I don't think they were Black Sabbath or Ozzy Osborne. Many of us quit going to Mass in this same time period, does this make us anti-Christ. May God have mercy on me that this was not so. But I was lost. And looking back it was not the fault of myself or my parents. It was the fault of Churchmen who laid down and died and took billions of souls with them.
Can this music be dangerous? Absolutely. In many ways it helped to contribute to this vast wasteland. But I would also contend that it had a lot to do with the keeping of my wits as compared to the dumbing down of television. Just think about Three's Company to help me make my point. Yes, there was a lot of falsehood inherent in the better or premium rock and roll, but there was also a lot of truth in it. After all, it all depends on the receiver of the messages and how he happens to interpret it. I cannot be concerned too much if some people lose their souls to the ear candy and other mindless offerings of the day. It is certainly tragic, but I suppose I am somewhat of an elitist and I believe they would have found a way to lose their souls in some other fashion at any rate.
Bishop Williamson in his essay, misnamed the song by the Rolling Stones. He meant "Sympathy for the Devil". Yes, that is indeed a frightening title. But I never heard that song as a worship of Satan. To the contrary, I viewed it as an exhibition of the horrors of the 20th Century and they even tied this evil to those who Crucified our Lord. It mentions the Russian Revolution, the German Blitzkreig, the assassination of the Kennedy's, as being the work, in the final analysis of Satan. Our battle is not with flesh an blood but with principalities and powers. The good bishop may say it worships Satan, I could just as easily say the song evokes in a modern setting, St. Paul. Having said that, about that particular song, let me also say that the Rolling Stones are pretty bad and there is much to look at with complete revulsion. But not that song.
Finally, let me speak about the John Lennon song, Imagine. I never had a problem with it. In fact, even if it was not Lennon's intention, I would argue that it actually creates the boomerang effect and if anything causes people to think about heaven, and hell, death and final judgement. In other words the Four Last Things.
We have to live in the world without being of the world. All I am saying is that sometimes you have to get into it in order to get out of it. I saw the power inherent in this music that helped to bring about this current Dionysian Culture we find ourselves in. It was this understanding and by studying it that eventually led me back to the Church and to the real Mass and its glorious tradition. I don't think I am that unique, but I made it.
But you may also find me somewhat of an oddball that I don't really care for Beethoven Masses or those of Mozart. That too, I view as modernism and I can also criticize the Renaissance and the vile Church art done by Michelangelo as far more damaging to the Church in its rejection and disdain for the Gothic world as being far more damaging than The Beatles could ever be. You do realize that even the Blessed Virgin Mary was depicted in the nude on the wall of the Sistine Chapel, don't you? It took another pope somewhere down the line to tell another artist to put some clothes on her and everyone else in the mural of the Last Judgement.
I hope this makes some sense to you. Again, I am not disagreeing with you at all. I just see things a bit differently from my own personal experience. There are plenty of temptations in the world. I fear that this particular worry, popular music, is simply low hanging fruit. And in the process of totally rejecting it due to issues of purity or modernism we have a tendency to miss some of the other things going on in our world. We may be selling ourselves short in this regard.
Finally, and I really mean it this time, The Beatles were not revolutionaries at all. They were the head of an industry that served to give the impression of a revolution while the business kept playing on. It was every bit as much soft fascism as it was soft communism, but certainly operating in capitalism. It also softened peoples hearts a bit, and while I disdain all liberals it got people to thinking about things like peace. There is value in that. It sure beats the way Hitler used the microphone and the PA system. For at least The Beatles, and those who came after them, did not invade Poland and start a war that killed 60 million people. Most of whom probably died in need of a good confession.
Topic: Did you watch the superbowl halftime show? (Read 5195 times)