Let it Be - The Beatles.

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
You're missing or ignoring the point Mike. How much evidence for the connection needs to be presented for it to be legitmately perceived on it's own?

And you're ignoring your own argument.

You're repeatedly using words like "mistakenly" and "imagined" and "perception", and rightfully so.

The composer has said that it's not about the Virgin Mary. There's nothing in the context of the song to suggest that it's about anyone or anything other than his mother, Mary.

It's a well established fact that this isn't about the Virgin Mary.

It's unfair to condemn the song or the artist based on your misperceptions.

You're really fighting a strawman because you come from the assumption that seeing an obvious Mother Mary connection forces one to accept or identify with the song that way.

It's not a strawman at all. What is a strawman is to condemn the song and the composer for something that you only assume he said.

You're normally so level headed about these things, but, honestly, you're starting to venture into Jack Chick and Dial-the-Truth territory here.


Now Playing: Wynonie Harris – “Bloodshot Eyes”

 

[av1611jim]

Someone in this forum repeatedly demands a song be considered on its own merits apart from the artists intentions or hidden agenda.
Why is that not happening here?
Ask ANY protestant or Baptist christian to listen to this song who has no information at all about Paul's intent and you will find he/she will identify "Mary" as the catholic Mary.
You will find the same conclusion with "Lady Madonna".

Considering the times, I find it is no "coinky-dink" that the media hype surrounding the Beatles burst of fame on the American publics' minds, the election of our first Catholic president, and these songs all happened in the same decade.

Personally, I have always thought it strange that the Beatles would produce such obviously catholic songs since they were into Eastern religions so heavily.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[rsr]

Mike, I had it perfectly worked out so that Hotel California was really about the Nixon White House.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
And you're ignoring your own argument.

You're repeatedly using words like "mistakenly" and "imagined" and "perception", and rightfully so.

The composer has said that it's not about the Virgin Mary. There's nothing in the context of the song to suggest that it's about anyone or anything other than his mother, Mary.

Sure there is. When someone wants to tell others that his mother came to him, he says, "My mother came to me". or even "My mother Mary came to me". He does not say "Mother Mary came to me".

Originally posted by Mike McK:
It's a well established fact that this isn't about the Virgin Mary.

That's fine! The fact remains that the language in the lyrics is consistent with a matriarchal Mary mother figure.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
It's unfair to condemn the song or the artist based on your misperceptions.

Your strawman rears it's ugly head. I'm not condemning the song. I'm simply judging the music and lyrics on their own merits. That is the only rational approach. I don't care if Paul said that Mary was a concubine of his. I can still only go by what the actual words communicate to me.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
It's not a strawman at all. What is a strawman is to condemn the song and the composer for something that you only assume he said.

I'm not condemning anyone! That's your strawman right there! I'm simply saying the imagery is there, it exists and is automatically perceived by the listener. In order to contradict the natural Catholic intepretation, one needs to go to an outside source (the song writer) and find extra information which is not contained in the song.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Someone in this forum repeatedly demands a song be considered on its own merits apart from the artists intentions or hidden agenda.
Why is that not happening here?

I have always been thoroughly consistent in this area. The profitability of all works must be judged independant from the worker.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by av1611jim:
Someone in this forum repeatedly demands a song be considered on its own merits apart from the artists intentions or hidden agenda.
Why is that not happening here?

I have always been thoroughly consistent in this area. The profitability of all works must be judged independant from the worker. </font>[/QUOTE]If the shoe doesn't fit...

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Marcia]

I remember when this came out (I had the album, of course). It was not Catholic to me at all; the message is certainly not Catholic or christian. What the Beatles were doing was actually using something that seemed Catholic and that they knew would be taken by many as Catholic, but was actually an Eastern message, "Let it be."

"Let it be" clearly falls into the eastern worldview of letting things go; karma works itself out the way it's supposed to; don't fight the flow but give in to it; don't attach; etc.

The Beatles did this with a lot of their later songs; they used imagery and terms that were familiar to Western ears but actually had Eastern (or drug) references. It was very clever.

It's being done today even more subtly by others (and I'm not talking about musicians).

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Sure there is. When someone wants to tell others that his mother came to him, he says, "My mother came to me". or even "My mother Mary came to me". He does not say "Mother Mary came to me".

I give up.

If you don't understand that songs and poetry are constructed differently than conversational grammar, then I don't think there's any point in carrying this conversation any further.

That's fine! The fact remains that the language in the lyrics is consistent with a matriarchal Mary mother figure.

Or so you assume.

The composer has already said that the song is not about the Virgin Mary. It is well established that the song isn't about the Virgin Mary.

You, yourself, have used the words "mistakenly" and "imagined" and "perception" in describing the conclusion that the song is about the Virgin Mary, so you must know that the conclusion rests with the assumptions of the listener, not with the intent of the artist.

Your strawman rears it's ugly head. I'm not condemning the song. I'm simply judging the music and lyrics on their own merits. That is the only rational approach. I don't care if Paul said that Mary was a concubine of his. I can still only go by what the actual words communicate to me.

So then you finally admit that you're judging the song based on your own perception, not the intent of the composer.

I'm simply saying the imagery is there, it exists and is automatically perceived by the listener.

No, by listeners who are looking for Catholic boogeymen. Remember, the majority of us did not "percieve" this.

In order to contradict the natural Catholic intepretation, one needs to go to an outside source (the song writer) and find extra information which is not contained in the song.

Or, you could just listen to the song in the context it was intended, rather than trying to read conspiratorial meanings into it.

Honestly, this sort of stupidity is why it's so frustrating to talk to other Christians about music and why the church, as a body, have lost our right to be heard in the arts.


Now Playing: Livingston Taylor – “Bicycle”

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I remember when this came out (I had the album, of course). It was not Catholic to me at all; the message is certainly not Catholic or christian. What the Beatles were doing was actually using something that seemed Catholic and that they knew would be taken by many as Catholic, but was actually an Eastern message, "Let it be."

"Let it be" clearly falls into the eastern worldview of letting things go; karma works itself out the way it's supposed to; don't fight the flow but give in to it; don't attach; etc.

So then, given the context in which the song was written, do you think Paul would have been better off harboring bitterness and allowing his anger to build?

Jesus often preached the same message. Do you think that He was wrong when He said, "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself"?


Now Playing: Jim Lauderdale – “Wait ‘Til Spring”

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by rsr:
Mike, I had it perfectly worked out so that Hotel California was really about the Nixon White House.

Don't get me started. There have been so many rumors and urban legends about that album, it would make your head spin.


Now Playing: Jim Lauderdale – “Planet of Love”

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
...."Let it be" clearly falls into the eastern worldview of letting things go; karma works itself out the way it's supposed to; don't fight the flow but give in to it; don't attach; etc.

So then, given the context in which the song was written, do you think Paul would have been better off harboring bitterness and allowing his anger to build?

Jesus often preached the same message. Do you think that He was wrong when He said, "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself"?
</font>[/QUOTE]I was merely giving info on the song's refrain, so why are you asking me if it was better for Paul to be bitter? I don't know what's worse, bitterness or deceptive happiness. I had lots of peaceful times as a New Ager but I was on the road to hell.

As far as what Jesus said, Jesus was not saying, "Let it be." To tell us no to worry was, in context, telling us that God was in charge of all and to trust him (as in God looking out for the sparrows and all that). That is not the message of "Let it be" by the Beatles by any means.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I was merely giving info on the song's refrain, so why are you asking me if it was better for Paul to be bitter?

You shared an opinion, which is fine. But if you're going to share an opinion, then it's reasonable for someone to ask you a question about your opinion.

I don't know what's worse, bitterness or deceptive happiness.

But why is the only alternative necessarily "deceptive happiness"?

Why can't it be peace or forgiveness? Why can't it be an opportunity for personal growth?

As far as what Jesus said, Jesus was not saying, "Let it be." To tell us no to worry was, in context, telling us that God was in charge of all and to trust him (as in God looking out for the sparrows and all that). That is not the message of "Let it be" by the Beatles by any means.

So then, for Jesus to tell us not to be anxious is a good thing, but for Paul McCartney to remember the lessons his mother taught him, teaching him not to be anxious, that's a bad thing?


Now Playing: Doyle Lawson – “There’s a Light Guiding Me”

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
I was merely giving info on the song's refrain, so why are you asking me if it was better for Paul to be bitter?

You shared an opinion, which is fine. But if you're going to share an opinion, then it's reasonable for someone to ask you a question about your opinion.
</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't ask a question, you were giving advice not to see a movie that as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the topic.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't know what's worse, bitterness or deceptive happiness.

But why is the only alternative necessarily "deceptive happiness"?

Why can't it be peace or forgiveness? Why can't it be an opportunity for personal growth?
</font>[/QUOTE]You were the one who brought up bitterness vs. "let it be" not me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As far as what Jesus said, Jesus was not saying, "Let it be." To tell us no to worry was, in context, telling us that God was in charge of all and to trust him (as in God looking out for the sparrows and all that). That is not the message of "Let it be" by the Beatles by any means.

So then, for Jesus to tell us not to be anxious is a good thing, but for Paul McCartney to remember the lessons his mother taught him, teaching him not to be anxious, that's a bad thing? </font>[/QUOTE]It's deceptive because "let it be" is not, imo, a biblical philosophy, especially in light of the eastern influences on some of their songs. I recall actually having discussions on many of their songs that people were taking as a philosophy. The take on 'let it be' was very eastern and "go with the flow" kind of thinking.

Yes, I would say that taking Jesus' advice is far superior to advice from Paul or his mother.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
You didn't ask a question, you were giving advice not to see a movie that as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the topic.

I beg your pardon? Obviously, we're having two different conversations. I haven't said anything about a movie.

You were the one who brought up bitterness vs. "let it be" not me.

Yes, I did. In response to your statement that the idea of "letting it be" or, as Jesus said, "being anxious for nothing" and tying it to Eastern philosophies.

And I believe that this was reasonable, given that the context in which the song was written is important to this conversation.

You, in turn, said, I was merely giving info on the song's refrain, so why are you asking me if it was better for Paul to be bitter? I don't know what's worse, bitterness or deceptive happiness, thus implying that these were the only choices he had.

I don't believe that's true and asked you why these were the only two choices and you've so far refused to answer.

deceptive because "let it be" is not, imo, a biblical philosophy, especially in light of the eastern influences on some of their songs.

But what does the fact that they showed their interest in Eastern religions in other, unrelated songs, have to do with this?

Whatever you may think of them or their music, the fact that Jesus taught it in the Bible makes it a Biblical teaching.

Yes, I would say that taking Jesus' advice is far superior to advice from Paul or his mother.

Why? If the statement is true when Jesus says it, why is it somehow less true when someone else says it?


Now Playing: David Wilcox – “How Did You Find Me Here”

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
You didn't ask a question, you were giving advice not to see a movie that as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the topic.

I beg your pardon? Obviously, we're having two different conversations. I haven't said anything about a movie.
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that. I just realize it. It was from another thread I had just posted on and I was getting them mixed up.

In fact, I was coming here to edit that out when I saw you had posted.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You were the one who brought up bitterness vs. "let it be" not me.

Yes, I did. In response to your statement that the idea of "letting it be" or, as Jesus said, "being anxious for nothing" and tying it to Eastern philosophies.

You, in turn, said, I was merely giving info on the song's refrain, so why are you asking me if it was better for Paul to be bitter? I don't know what's worse, bitterness or deceptive happiness, thus implying that these were the only choices he had.
</font>[/QUOTE]You had said this, and this is what I was responding to:

So then, given the context in which the song was written, do you think Paul would have been better off harboring bitterness and allowing his anger to build?

I saw it as a choice between harboring bitterness and allowing his anger to build or "letting it be" which I consider deceptive happiness.

Whatever you may think of them or their music, the fact that Jesus taught it in the Bible makes it a Biblical teaching.

But that's the whole point. I don't think Jesus taught "let it be." That is NOT what Jesus was teaching. It's not good biblical hermeneutics to take his statements out of context. In context, he was saying not to worry but to trust in God. Paul is not saying anything about trusting in God.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
The composer has already said that the song is not about the Virgin Mary.

If he was concerned about the listener understanding that, he would not have to say it outside the context of the song.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
It is well established that the song isn't about the Virgin Mary.

Sure, I can agree with that. We are told from the writer's perspective that he was paying respect to his own mother. That still doesn't change the self evident language in the lyrics which portray a Catholic imagery. It's there, and anyone who is at all familiar with Catholic church will see it.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
You, yourself, have used the words "mistakenly" and "imagined" and "perception" in describing the conclusion that the song is about the Virgin Mary, so you must know that the conclusion rests with the assumptions of the listener, not with the intent of the artist.

Absolutely! Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds may actually be a song glorifying escapism through psychotropic substances, from the artist's perspective. If that is the case, it certainly isn't self evident in the lyrics themselves.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
So then you finally admit that you're judging the song based on your own perception, not the intent of the composer.

I'm not finally admitting that Mike, I've been saying it all along. There is no other logical way to judge a work. You might make a gun with the intent to rob a bank, but that doesn't make bank robbery the purpose of the gun.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
Honestly, this sort of stupidity is why it's so frustrating to talk to other Christians about music and why the church, as a body, have lost our right to be heard in the arts.

If you were to pay attention to what I'm saying rather than creating strawmen and jumping to false conclusions, you might actually come around and see that my perspective opens up the arts to Christians.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
If he was concerned about the listener understanding that, he would not have to say it outside the context of the song.

So then, if an interviewer asks a legendary songwriter how he gets his ideas for songs, he shouldn't answer?

Sure, I can agree with that. We are told from the writer's perspective that he was paying respect to his own mother. That still doesn't change the self evident language in the lyrics which portray a Catholic imagery. It's there, and anyone who is at all familiar with Catholic church will see it.

Well then, there you go. Obviously the song is about the Virgin Mary, Paul McCartney is a shill for the Roman Catholic church and Jack Chick is a genius.

Absolutely! Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds may actually be a song glorifying escapism through psychotropic substances, from the artist's perspective. If that is the case, it certainly isn't self evident in the lyrics themselves.

So then, why would you assume that it is?

Do we see a pattern here?

If you were to pay attention to what I'm saying rather than creating strawmen and jumping to false conclusions, you might actually come around and see that my perspective opens up the arts to Christians.

First of all, I don't know that I'd go around accusing anyone of jumping to false conclusions after posting three pages of false conclusions.

Second, it's precisely this Dial-the-Truth mentality of "I assume it is, therefore, it is" is precisely why the church has all but abandoned the arts today.


Now Playing: Duke Robilard – “Exalted Lover”

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I saw it as a choice between harboring bitterness and allowing his anger to build or "letting it be" which I consider deceptive happiness.

For the third time, why are those your only two choices? Why can't it simply be the maturity of making peace with the world around you?

But that's the whole point. I don't think Jesus taught "let it be." That is NOT what Jesus was teaching. It's not good biblical hermeneutics to take his statements out of context. In context, he was saying not to worry but to trust in God. Paul is not saying anything about trusting in God.

I don't see a signifigant difference between the two and I don't believe that I've taken anything out of context.


Now Playing: Stanley Brothers – “An Evening Long Ago”

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
So then, if an interviewer asks a legendary songwriter how he gets his ideas for songs, he shouldn't answer?

That kind of knowledge is usually trivial to me. Personal information can at times be beneficial for understanding exactly where the artist was coming from and give greater insight into the intended meaning but more often this is not the case, especially in rock music.

If you go back to my original response to the meaning of the lyrics, my interpretation remains essentially the same regardless of whether or not "Mary" is regarded as the mother of Jesus.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
Well then, there you go. Obviously the song is about the Virgin Mary, Paul McCartney is a shill for the Roman Catholic church and Jack Chick is a genius.

There you go stuffing another strawman. I never said the song was Catholic, or even that it was about Mary. I simply said the song uses Catholic imagery.

See:

Catholic imagery. Mary is likely a mother figure who represents wisdom and comfort.

Acknowledge, perhaps support some undefined action, event, or understanding.

Expression of an idea based on the commonality of mankind. This sentiment is a common theme in the likes of Martin Luther King jr, Gandhi and many Christians will say Jesus.

Basically a summary of the entire song, Catholic imagery reiforced.

Hopeful, transcendental, melodic, but not of much substance or profit lyrically.

That's the song in a nutshell. Now you may disagree with me about the Catholic imagery, but the fact is that the language is consistent with a tradtional Catholic Mary figure. It lends itself easily to that interpretation because the role of Mary is to comfort and dispense wisdom.

Absolutely! Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds may actually be a song glorifying escapism through psychotropic substances, from the artist's perspective. If that is the case, it certainly isn't self evident in the lyrics themselves.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
So then, why would you assume that it is?

I wouldn't, it's not in the lyrics. If Paul came out and told me the song was intended to glorify drug use, I would still insist that the message isn't in the lyrics.

Originally posted by Mike McK:
Do we see a pattern here?

Yes, I see your strawman getting larger, and your desperation to distract me with insults directed at my intelligence increase exponentially with each post.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
I saw it as a choice between harboring bitterness and allowing his anger to build or "letting it be" which I consider deceptive happiness.

For the third time, why are those your only two choices? Why can't it simply be the maturity of making peace with the world around you?
</font>[/QUOTE]Here we go again. Those are the 2 choices you gave me. See my previous post where I quote you.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But that's the whole point. I don't think Jesus taught "let it be." That is NOT what Jesus was teaching. It's not good biblical hermeneutics to take his statements out of context. In context, he was saying not to worry but to trust in God. Paul is not saying anything about trusting in God.

I don't see a signifigant difference between the two and I don't believe that I've taken anything out of context.
</font>[/QUOTE]See next post.