The Beatles are the greatest rock n' roll band of all time.

I'm not making an argument on music style, or judging it out of the blue. No; I would not know anything was wrong if I had never heard of the BEatles before. I didn't know anything was wrong when I had heard of them, but didn't know about their drugs, false religion, and veiled references in the songs. But once I became aware of those things; then it called into question their whole spirit benind their music, and their trustworthiness as artists I should listen to.
Then you start thinking "Just what are all of those things they are singing about?" What is the Sun King? Mean Mr. Mustard? (I know that those, or at least the latter is from Yellow Submarine, but then being exposed to that several times in the grammar school auditorium, what on earth are all of those things in that movie?)
If the Lucy in the Sky interpretation happenes to be urban legend like Puff the Magic Dragon; then maybe it is wrong; but is that really aun urban legend? They were into drugs and false religion (which opens one up to demonic psychedelic type visions and stuff, anyway), so it is not surprising. Their lifestyle and philosophy seems to confirm these legends, and casts doubt on their appropriateness for the Christian home.
They create their own "bad association"; so then we can say "evil communication [the lifestyle, religion/philosophy, gimmicks, references to these things, etc; not the music style] corrupts good manners", and "avoid every appearance of evil".

 

You still seem to be accusing me of "looking" for bad spirits or messages. Whatever the builders of my house were into I have entirely no knowledge about. And I am not going to go and try to dig it up, as per the principle of 1 Cor.10:25. But if I knew that the builders devoted the house to false gods; I might not want to live there; or at least my wife would obbject (I am more intellectual, and less prone to being afraid of something like that). And I do have to respect her feelings; which is what led me to get rid of EWF, and the Beatles, and Steely Dan stuff I had, to begin with. Also since I am debating. more on your side in this issue; and I could not in good conscience hold onto reslly questionable stuff like that while arguing against them. It look (alsmost to myself, if not to them should one of them ever be in my house) like I am justifying myself in something questionable. So even for their sake; I felt that was too much, and got rid of it. (So once again, Aaron was partially right in his use of 1 Cor.8:14. But since his position regarding style is questionable; that is why I do not go that far).
But with the BEatles; it is just too weel known how they mixed these spiritually bad things into the music, and once again; not the style, but all the words, gimmicks and other imagery associated with it. I would probably not have given up the EWF if it were not for all the album covers, and then their going back to the pagan imagery after professing to become Christian. I did judge the music on its own worth, which is why I collected and kept it as long as I did. (And there were actually very few songs that overtly conveyed false religion). But it was these other trappings that created a bad association. Still judging the music on its own worth; my wife and I will still appreciate and enjoy a song if we hear it somewhere. But we just did not need that stuff in our house anymore--the imagery and whole theme, mostly, not the music sound.
Perhaps you would not be so defensive if you realized I was stating my own conviction and not judging you by it. I offer it as a word of wisdom; but I am not judging or even ranting on you like the rock critics.

 

Why do you assume that we don't care?

Maybe we're just not given to fits of hysteria over a line in a song.

OK. How is the music "anti-Christian"?

Actually, "My Sweet Lord" isn't a Beatles' song.

If you don't know that, then maybe you should hold off posting until you know a little about their music.

Yeah, I'm one of them. It is a good song.

I may not agree with his allegience to Krishna, and the song may have been plagiarized, but a good song is a good song.

Funny, I have all of their albums and am not familiar with that song.

Is it possible that you're thinking of "We Are the Champions", which never mentions homosexuality at all?

Since the construction of music was greatly different in their days, I tend to doubt it.

On the other hand, since Jesus created music and gave us the talent to play it, I would imagine that He's excited by much more than our little minds would imagine.

Funny, but when I first became a Christian, I said the same thing.

I got rid of all of my albums, quit playing music, all of that stuff.

Thank God, He showed me that I could glorify Him with my music, even if it wasn't a funeral dirge.

 

I saw that evil spawn of Satan, John Prine, about two years ago and he told the story behind the song "Illegal Smile".

He asked how many people thought it was about getting high and, naturally, everybody thought that it was.

He said that when he wrote the song, it had nothing to do with drugs at all, but just about people who are so uptight that they won't let anybody else enjoy themselves (kind of like some of the people here, I guess).

This was back around '70 or '71 and anytime he would go on a talk show or a radio show, they would always play it up as a pot song.

He just got tired of trying to explain that it had nothing to do with pot and gave in.

Now, it's a pot song.

CBS Records refused to release Jimmy Buffett's song, "Come Monday" (I kid you not) because they believed that the word "Come" was a sexual reference. Now, it can be, but in that context, such an assumption was just stupid.

Now, the ironic thing is that, at the time, CBS was also the home of Conway Twitty, who had some of the filthiest songs out there. He was the Teddy Pendergrass of country music.

They saw sex in an otherwise innocent song, but refused to see explicit sexual referrences in the songs of one of their top artists.

How Jimmy Buffett and his alter ego, Marvin Gardens, pointed out their hypocrisy is now a legendary story, but we'll save that for another time.

Bottom line is that we hear what we want to hear.

If they want to see pot in "Puff" or acid in "Lucy", that's fine. The rest of us will just laugh at them.

And not on the hair length of the artist?

 

Amen sister.
I grew up with them and loved every note and lyric they came up with.
"Behold old things have passed away and all things have become new". Maybe a little out of context but fits.

 

Sadly, John Lennon was right at that time.
The beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ, thanks in large part to the secular media who created the craze.

Wow! Think of it! And there are some here who would say the beatles deserve our praise since they were oh such good musicians?
LOL

In HIS service;
Jim

 

That was the group Frankie Goes To Hollywood. The band was not only homosexual, they were communists, as clearly indicated by their second album.

The Beatles are indeed the greatest rock n' roll band. That cannot be disputed. How many of the bands mentioned were influenced by the Beatles? Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones might have never been noticed in the states were it not for the Fab Four. Talent alone is not enough to make it in the US - look at Crowded House. They were very talented and never really made it in the States. Oasis is talented (they were also self destructive) and never made it in the States.

No other band has had the impact on the genre like the boys from Liverpool.....not even Mr. Zimmerman.

Regards to all,

BiR

 

Back in the day I never cared much for the Beatles.

I had hundreds of LP's, but only had one Beatles collection.(the red and blue hits hits anthology that had them looking over the same motel balcony in 1964 and them 1970)

I almost never played it. They were a "Pop" group, and I generally had no used for Pop groups. Pop music pretty much bored me(and still does), and is, in a way, the complete antithesis of what music should be as far as I am concerned.

I believe music should be an expression of what the player or singer has in their heart. It should be presented just as that, with no concern for whether 50 million people or 25 other people like it. I actually had...back then...several John Lennon and George Harrison albums that were much more compelling for me than anything the Beatles ever did.

Also the Beatles never jammed. Groups like the Allman Brothers Band, Cream, Traffic, the Marshall Tucker Band, the Grateful Dead, Little Feat, Carlos Santana and Neil Young blow the Beatles out of the water in a huge way. No comparison. The Beatles arent even in the same league as groups like those.

Having said that, there is no denying the talent that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison had.(I just cant say that about ole Ringo). Theres in no doubt that..for what they were, a "Pop" group...they were exceedingly exceptional.

But regarding my taste in music, they were just very boring.

Mike

 

Travelsong said, "If a Beatles tune is sinful, it will be sinful regardless of who wrote it, recorded it or covers it. It will be sinful because it's message is antichrist and for no other reason."

__________________________________________________

How very insightful of you my friend.
This has been my position for quite some time.

If it is not "pro-christ" then it is "anti-christ". There is no such thing as middle ground. I can't find anything Scripturally which would suggest otherwise.

Therefore; the Beatles are/were "anti-christ". I find it extremely troubling when professing christians praise something/someone which is "anti-christ".

In HIS service;
Jim

 

That's it in a nutshell. All day long we utilize or take advantage of the works of others. God has given us the ability to discern between good and evil. There's absolutely no reason to fear superstious notions of evil spirits lurking behind that great melody or lyric which could be translated multiple ways.

If a Beatles tune is sinful, it will be sinful regardless of who wrote it, recorded it or covers it. It will be sinful because it's message is antichrist and for no other reason.

Superstition is one of a Christian's worst enemies. </font>[/QUOTE]To be fair to Travelsong I will post his quote and the context of his quote.

either post a wink or sarcasm when
you are trying to gig someone.

on a lighter note...The Beatles are fixing be number one again!...on the BB music post

 

Well the Beatles were popular during Stoned Age and I am sure that they have had a yabba dabba doo time on more than one occasion. In as much that one could claim that the Beatles victimized our youth with drug related messages in thier songs we have to rememeber that the Beatles were also influnced by popular artist from our country like Bob Dylan and I'm sure someone influenced Bob Dylan and so it never ends.

 

1. Name one band that had more influence on the genre of rock music than The Beatles.

2. Bob Dylan was largely influenced by Woody Guthrie, who is also one of my all-time favorites.

God's Blessings to you,
BiR

 

The same question is for you: what other band had more impact on the genre than The Beatles? All of the bands you name are exceptional; however, they did not have the impact of the Fab Four.

God's Blessings to you too, Mike,
BiR

 

BiR,

I said...

And you said...

I think you misunderstood my meaning, or perhaps I wasnt clear enough.

My entire post that you responded to was meant to be in the context of my personal taste regarding music. Pop music doesnt do anything for me. I am more interested in "roots" music, roots based fusion music, and music with instrumental improvisation as its focus. Hence, artists like Phil Keaggy, Iona, and bluegrass gospel groups in christian music, and artists like the Allman Brothers Band, Clapton, Neil Young and multitudes of bluegrass bands in secular music.

In regard to my taste in music, the Beatles are not even in the same universe as groups like the Allman Brothers, Neil Young, Iona or Phil Keaggy.

Regarding who had the greatest impact on rock music, the Beatles certainly are right up at the top with a few others. The Beatles, early Elvis Presley, mid 60's Bob Dylan, Buddy Holly, Cream, the Everly Brothers, probably several others. I guess it would depend on what *type* of impact you are talking about.

In regard to simply introducing the sound to people, early Presley and Buddy Holly were the 1st. In regard to improvisation, groups like Cream and the Allman Brothers were hugely infuential. In regard to making it socially relavent, mid 60's Bob Dylan was clearly a rock and roll "poet" as none other.

Also, individual people are impacted in different ways. I am a musician and have played in several bands over the years and the Beatles have had pretty much zero impact on me, while other bands and artists have had a huge impact. But thats just me.

But the Beatles have had a huge impact, theres no doubt about that. In regard to simply causing the most amount of people (thats the essence of "pop" music, after all) to enjoy...and purchase...rock and roll style music, they might very well be at the top. In that context you could be right.

God bless,

Mike

 

D28guy your tastes are very Americana, I respect that, with the exception of Clapton.

I don't think
any of these artists would give a lot of beatles
tunes a second thought..what they would give thought too is thier process and work ethic.
Clapton did work with Harrison but the influence
seemed to be on Harrison not vice versa. All the
artist you mentioned were stand alone on their
own merits and talents..especially Neil Young
he has been all over the map but each project
has been quality.

I notice that Phil Keagy sounds alot like Paul
Macartney vocally and that only compliements his
good guitar work.

Early beatles was clearly pop...the white album
was "out their" way out ,more sophistication.

The later beatles were mostly psychedelic pop, what we might call today indie pop or indie rock.

imho

Number One again! Meet the Beatles

 

The Beatles were a great band but you've got to remember that they were a product of their influences, just the same as anybody else.

A lot of their studio techniques owe a lot to Chet Atkins, Buddy Holly and Phil Spector.

Chet Atkins and Les Paul did innovative things with overdubbing long before they did.

Buddy Holly (as well as Brian Wilson), who was among the first artists to write and produce his own music, used unusual instruments before they did.

George Harrison's guitar playing was clearly influenced by country artists such as Atkins, Don Rich, and Joe Maphis, as well as Gene Vincent and Eddie Cochran.

Paul McCartney has said many times that he and John fashioned their songwriting style after Rodgers and Hart. This is why their songs were always credited as "Lennon/McCartney", rather than individually.

You can also see great traces of Felice and Boudloux Bryant in their songwiting.

They were a great band, but they weren't the first to do a lot of the things they were credited with.


Now Playing: Dan Hicks – “Striking it Rich”