Log In
Register
8.42am
18 April 2013
Offline
I guess I worry about such things in life because I am a clergyman. And if I’m honest with myself, I find that there is real spiritual power there when I say mass, but I can’t tell you for certain where it comes from or what it is. I believe that it comes from Christ because that is what my tradition tells me.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
8.49am
27 March 2015
Offline
Well… I’m fairly sure many of those screaming girls barely knew the Beatles’ music. They got so swept up in the mania, the music became irrelevant. If they had appreciated the group for their music, they would have listened rather than scream throughout those concerts. I think the sex-appeal and the image came first for a lot of those girls. You can tell which ones were in it for the music when you see the footage: they are the ones who are standing quietly when the Beatles pass, and the ones who try to actually hear the concerts.
As for the parallel between music and religion; I am not a theologian. My instinct would be to think that whilst there may very well be similar effects there, the basis is the polar opposite. Religion, in my view, is based on handing over your troubles to an invisible force and expecting them to fix your life for you. To me, music reminds me of my own inner strength and better times, allowing me to pull myself up by the bootstraps and fix my own problems. In both cases, the inspiration comes from a third party, so in that regard I can see the correlation. But for me personally, religion vs music equals asking someone else to feed you vs getting inspired to feed yourself.
YMMV, obviously.
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
Oudis, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedarsFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
8.51am
18 April 2013
Offline I suppose you could say I don’t try to avoid myth, since I am in the business of creating it. For me, truth is not always the same thing as fact. Something can be true even if it never happened. Is the myth of The Beatles more true than the lives they lived? Do the facts of their lives invalidate the myth? I guess this is what I’m asking.
I enjoy the myth of The Beatles, but I see others around me enjoying the process of demystifying and deconstructing The Beatles. The same thing happens with Elvis fans. They happily read stories about his moral failures. And I’m like…what? How can you enjoy that? What value is there in destroying your heroes?
Can they still be heroes once we completely tear them down? In John’s case, he seems to be the one who started tearing himself down.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
8.56am
27 March 2015
Offline Just a random thought that popped into my head…
I think the myth, and more particularly people realising it was just that, may have played a big role in the birth of the PID hoax. It seems to me some people need that myth so badly to be real, and that’s where your comparison to religion absolutely makes 100% sense, they had to hold onto that no matter what. I think some people may have been so utterly dismayed by the knowledge that the myth wasn’t real, that they came up with these elaborate conspiracy theories to help them keep the myth alive. If Paul died in 1966 and was replaced by someone who was flawed, then Paul keeps his sanctified image. Some even took it a step further by saying all Beatles were replaced. I’d guess the myth has a lot to do with that. People who are dead, can’t make mistakes.
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
Expert Textpert, BeatlebugFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
8.56am
18 April 2013
Offline Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< said Religion, in my view, is based on handing over your troubles to an invisible force and expecting them to fix your life for you. To me, music reminds me of my own inner strength and better times, allowing me to pull myself up by the bootstraps and fix my own problems.
That is not true of all religion. It may be true of the religion you have been exposed to.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
8.58am
18 April 2013
Offline Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< said
Just a random thought that popped into my head…I think the myth, and more particularly people realising it was just that, may have played a big role in the birth of the PID hoax. It seems to me some people need that myth so badly to be real, and that’s where your comparison to religion absolutely makes 100% sense, they had to hold onto that no matter what. I think some people may have been so utterly dismayed by the knowledge that the myth wasn’t real, that they came up with these elaborate conspiracy theories to help them keep the myth alive. If Paul died in 1966 and was replaced by someone who was flawed, then Paul keeps his sanctified image. Some even took it a step further by saying all Beatles were replaced. I’d guess the myth has a lot to do with that. People who are dead, can’t make mistakes.
Very interesting, thanks.
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
9.09am
8 January 2015
Offline
Perhaps another useful analogy is about being a musician. You’re still moved by music and the mystery of its emotional effect, but you can still deconstruct it, understand the music theory underpinning it, the production of the recording, etc. A funny thing is that you can’t properly behold a piece of music as a single object, it doesn’t fully work unless you listen to it unfold. It’s a bit like ritual, like faith. You can teach someone the process, the theory, but they’ll never make true music unless they are moved by it. Many musicians are superstitious about writing music, they like to pretend they “discovered” it rather than “constructed” it, because then they feel they won’t cheat the gift of inspiration. When you’re doing any art, you feel your way through it and the quality of the result has to do with your mastery of the art but the process is the same for the novice and the expert.
I agree that myth has its uses and is a kind of “truth”, perhaps only an ideal one. But it is very seductive too. I think truly demystifying or deconstructing only goes so far, myth and reality chase each other’s tails. I firmly “believe” the Beatles knew what they were creating up to a point, and after that they were and are still helpless participants in the myth. It isn’t about memory or facts, the myth itself intrudes here and there.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
Expert Textpert, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, BeatlebugI'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
9.10am
27 March 2015
Offline Expert Textpert said
Is the myth of The Beatles more true than the lives they lived? Do the facts of their lives invalidate the myth? I guess this is what I’m asking.I enjoy the myth of The Beatles, but I see others around me enjoying the process of demystifying and deconstructing The Beatles. The same thing happens with Elvis fans. They happily read stories about his moral failures. And I’m like…what? How can you enjoy that? What value is there in destroying your heroes?
Can they still be heroes once we completely tear them down? In John’s case, he seems to be the one who started tearing himself down.
You bring up some great questions there.
The myth is an entity in and of itself. It was created by the Beatles, but it lives independently of them. Paul has hinted at that many times when he mentioned he’s basically two people: Beatle Paul, and Paulie the Scouser. Beatle Paul is the man we see in the media and on stage. Paulie the Scouser, we rarely get to see at all. And I think that goes for the others as well, though John probably was the least capable (or willing) of dividing the two. But no, The Myth stands on its own, irrespective of the facts of their lives. To me, those are two different things even if they are threaded together. One doesn’t invalidate or harm the other.
You see it as destroying heroes, I see it as adding a dimension to them. By acknowledging their human qualities, they become even more admirable. These people, just like you and I, had their share of grief, setbacks, and general human failures to deal with. To me, it makes them that much more relatable and likeable. They weren’t perfect, and it wasn’t easy, but they still managed to achieve all those incredible things. How wonderful is that? Had they been perfect people with perfect lives, their achievements wouldn’t have been half as impressive. So I guess I’m seeing this in quite a different light than you.
Who’s completely tearing them down, though? I’m not. I am acknowledging their human traits, and I can get genuinely peeved by some of the stuff they say/said or do/did but that doesn’t diminish their value at all. Like I said, it sooner makes me value them even more. Being honest to yourself about your heroes’ flaws, is not the same as tearing them down. Only when you start to deny their good traits, that’s when the tearing down begins.
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
ewe2, Expert Textpert, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedarsFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
9.15am
18 April 2013
Offline ewe2 said
Perhaps another useful analogy is about being a musician. You’re still moved by music and the mystery of its emotional effect, but you can still deconstruct it, understand the music theory underpinning it, the production of the recording, etc. A funny thing is that you can’t properly behold a piece of music as a single object, it doesn’t fully work unless you listen to it unfold. It’s a bit like ritual, like faith. You can teach someone the process, the theory, but they’ll never make true music unless they are moved by it. Many musicians are superstitious about writing music, they like to pretend they “discovered” it rather than “constructed” it, because then they feel they won’t cheat the gift of inspiration. When you’re doing any art, you feel your way through it and the quality of the result has to do with your mastery of the art but the process is the same for the novice and the expert.I agree that myth has its uses and is a kind of “truth”, perhaps only an ideal one. But it is very seductive too. I think truly demystifying or deconstructing only goes so far, myth and reality chase each other’s tails. I firmly “believe” the Beatles knew what they were creating up to a point, and after that they were and are still helpless participants in the myth. It isn’t about memory or facts, the myth itself intrudes here and there.
Thanks, @ewe2, you’ve restored my faith in The Beatles myth a little bit.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
9.22am
18 April 2013
Offline Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< said
Who’s completely tearing them down, though? I’m not.
I see biographers such as Philip Norman doing this. After I read his biography of John, I was very disappointed, and felt like I was wrong for loving John so much because he was a horrible person.
I don’t see people here doing that so much. If it happens, it probably happens most in the threads about John. He just has so many flaws that people love to discuss.
I see it more on the Elvis forum that I am a member of. People there like to discuss Elvis’s failings.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
2.13pm
15 May 2014
Offline I’m being cynical about their image @Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, not about their music. That’s what I meant when I said “I hope I can make myself understood”. I am one of those who have been saved from dark despair by them –by their music, not by their image. Gee, I’d be dead if it wasn’t by The Beatles –and many other composers, as well as painters and writers. That’s why I said that an artist’s oeuvre goes above and beyond his personal traits. This is about their art, not about their myth. That’s why some of us want to know about the real people and therefore debunk the myth, @Expert Textpert. It makes us see how simple human beings, flesh and bone, can create amazing beauty. At least for me, that gives me hope, purpose, meaning. I don’t need the myth for that, I need the work of art.
The following people thank Oudis for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
2.41pm
18 April 2013
Offline Interesting. This all reminds me of the differences between High Christology and Low Christology.
High Christology is the study of Christ as being divine first, and human second. Low Christology is the study and emphasis of the human attributes of Christ. Some feel more comfortable with one than the other. I guess the same applies to the study of celebrity.
I guess you could say I am a High Beatleologist.
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Oudis, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
2.41pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Expert Textpert said
So, after a few years of being a hardcore Beatles fan, I find myself knowing less about what The Beatles stand for. It seems that there is an image of peace and love, of political Revolution , and counter-culture psychedelia about The Beatles. But the more I learn about the band, it seems they were really just a money-making machine, whose members were sometimes violent and cynical.
I’m not sure the The Beatles have to stand for anything. I guess that is up to what each individual sees in, seeks for or needs from The Beatles. Personally, I initially fell in love with the music. Now I love the stories; what it was like for them growing up, what inspired each song, what instruments were played on which songs, where those instruments were played on any given night in 1963 or 64. If there is another band that has had more written about them, I don’t care to know. You can find out almost anything you want about them and I consume it like a junkie who just scored a fix. Still, I don’t feel they stand for anything in my life. They are simply a wonderful hobby that thrills me to no end. They called themselves “s**t kickers from Liverpool”, “four guys who made it very big, that’s all” and “a great little dance hall band”. They were any four guys from any small city, full of brilliance and laden with flaws. Others created the money-making machine. The Beatles played with it and quickly grew bored over it, always asking what’s next?
Also, I wonder how much of the image they actually created, and how much was accidental? For instance, the most iconic of all peace and love Beatles images, the Yellow Submarine movie, was actually completely created by individuals who had nothing to do with The Beatles.
Others created the money-making machine.
Do you find that your image of The Beatles was shattered once you learned more about the mere mortals who were its members? Did this make you love The Beatles less, or more?
They were never more than mere mortals. Just ask them. The more I learn about them, the more they seem like family or close friends.
Also, does debating and arguing with other fans here on the forum whose opinions differ from your own take away from your fan experience? I often find myself saying “to hell with it all” when I find other fans bashing Yoko.
The only one who can take anything away from my fan experience is me. I digest facts and accept them for what they are until they are disproven. The instrument has not been invented that can measure how much I don’t care about other people’s opinions of those facts.
I am in the same state of disillusionment at the moment with learning too much about Elvis Presley, as well.
He too was just a person with flaws. Give your icons a break.
Lastly, do you feel when John wrote that “the dream is over,” it was his intention to kill the image of The Beatles? If you buy into an image of The Beatles, do you feel you are at odds with John for doing so?
“The dream” was many different things different to many different people depending on what each individual saw in, sought for or needed from The Beatles. He was simply announcing what was known internally for quite some time. It’s hard to be at odds with any of them because not one of them were singlehandedly at fault.
Your thoughts?
Thanks for asking. 
The following people thank Zig for this post:
Leppo, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedarsTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
2.41pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
Put any person under a microscope and I’m sure they won’t look that nice. John is an easy target as he is now projected by Yoko and Sean to be something he never said he was and would never pretend to be. John was very honest about who he was and how much of a b*****d he was and could be, sadly that gets removed to suit the image.
Sadly the same can be said about the Beatles; it’s why we are sitting here without a lovely Blu-Ray of ‘Let It Be ‘.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
ewe2, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.23pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Do the fans that have discovered them in the last 10 years ever buy into the myth or image or is that for people from a long time ago? There’s so much information about them (warts and all) so readily available. People should be able to get a balanced view of them if they don’t try to stay in one “good” or “bad” vein.
I’ve never thought of them as having one “thing” they stood for. Maybe I’m not looking deep enough. 
I do admit that I like that many people still love them/their music. They and their music help bring people together…a bonding point…like a sports team, etc. Like Zig said, a glorious hobby. One I am so glad I finally found (thank you Sir Paul and Ohhh Boy for dragging me to that concert).
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, BeatlebugCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
9.01pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline As far as the myth/image from back then: This is the way I think of it.
Others created it. The Beatles went along with it (for the fun, money, and birds). It just grew bigger than anyone expected. Then it popped.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
William Shears Campbell, BeatlebugCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
2.11am
27 March 2015
Offline Ahhh Girl said
Do the fans that have discovered them in the last 10 years ever buy into the myth or image or is that for people from a long time ago? There’s so much information about them (warts and all) so readily available. People should be able to get a balanced view of them if they don’t try to stay in one “good” or “bad” vein.I’ve never thought of them as having one “thing” they stood for. Maybe I’m not looking deep enough.
I do admit that I like that many people still love them/their music. They and their music help bring people together…a bonding point…like a sports team, etc. Like Zig said, a glorious hobby. One I am so glad I finally found (thank you Sir Paul and Ohhh Boy for dragging me to that concert).
Since the Beatles have always been a subconscious presence in my life – I sometimes say they’re part of my DNA – I’m not sure I fall into that category. I was 12 when I got my first proper Beatles introduction, and that was courtesy of my school’s music teacher who was a massive Beatles fan and who had us learn and study several of their songs. We even recorded one. I didn’t fall in love with them then, though. That happened within the last few years, so even though I already knew most of their songs, I guess I do somewhat fall into that group?
Anyway, I never did buy into the myth, I don’t think. Perhaps I did when I only had a very superficial view of them but once I reached that water, I dove right in and included any aspect of them into my learning curve. I’m in 100% agreement with @Zig on that one.
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
4.08am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I grew up with the Beatles in the mid-80’s and caught the full mania when it exploded in the build-up to the Anthology and beyond (aside from some news reports and Clyde 1 playing a song (i think ‘Ooh! My Soul) from ‘Live At The BBC ‘ on the radio because the album was #1, which was a big thing to me, i dont remember much press excitement or coverage for that release but there may have been) and i never bought into the myth/image.
I don’t know why but the music was and always has been the attraction, tho for many years i bought truck loads of merchandise. Maybe it was because from the early 90’s i was endlessly reading books and magazines about them, not that many were any good.
I’ve never really been one for lauding anyone or thinking they were flawless however.
Is the projected myth any greater than it was in the 60’s? Do we simply more know now as we are 50+ years on? Brian made a huge effort to hide any negative publicity and the media sold it but at the same time Michael Braun’s ‘Love Me Do : The Beatles Progress’ was published in 1964 which to a degree showed that it wasn’t true. John was in the papers for beating up Bob Wooler in June 1963. Was there much else?
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.30am
18 April 2013
Offline I have some younger acquaintances (Millenials) who do seem to buy into the peace and love Beatles image. They are the type who meditate, experiment with altering their minds, and attend burning man, if that gives you an idea.
I see a lot of people throwing the words image and myth around here as if they are something to be avoided. I don’t think they are.
I think the music itself projects a certain image, and if you like Stawberry Fields or I Am The Walrus you probably “buy into” an image whether you know it or not.
That image (and I don’t just mean the way they look) is a feeling that keeps you coming back to the music for more. It’s a space you like to inhabit and it is likely filled with color.
I don’t know how that couldn’t be true unless your interest in the music was purely an intellectual curiosity.
What I am talking about is the phenomenon that happens when learning too much about the musicians as people starts destroying the magic or invading that space.
Apparently that only happens to me.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
11.17am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
Expert Textpert wondered
So, after a few years of being a hardcore Beatles fan, I find myself knowing less about what The Beatles stand for.
Which aspect of the Beatles? The image, the music, or the flawed humans who created the music? I don’t think the people ever tried to ‘stand for’ anything in particular. But for many fans, the whole bit does mean something — I’d say it’s a feeling, or positive vibes. At least, that’s what it is for me, and I think a lot of people here would agree wholeheartedly.
It seems that there is an image of peace and love, of political Revolution , and counter-culture psychedelia about The Beatles. But the more I learn about the band, it seems they were really just a money-making machine, whose members were sometimes violent and cynical.
Also, I wonder how much of the image they actually created, and how much was accidental? For instance, the most iconic of all peace and love Beatles images, the Yellow Submarine movie, was actually completely created by individuals who had nothing to do with The Beatles.
A great deal of the image and the myth (both excellent terms, though they do carry slightly different connotations) was created by others; the Beatles played along with it to a certain extent, and still do. I don’t think, however, that they ever meant it to get to the point that it did. (‘I only said we were bigger than Rod, and now there’s all this!’
)
Do you find that your image of The Beatles was shattered once you learned more about the mere mortals who were its members? Did this make you love The Beatles less, or more?
No.
Okay, it did a little bit, at one time. There was a period when I sort of refused to accept the reality of their history after 1967, when tensions began to tear the band apart and everything went sour (right up to mostly ignoring the White Album , Abbey Road , Let It Be , and all the post-Beatle solo works — what a shame!). I much preferred to make my Beatles forever exist in the happy, fruitful space of 1964-66, when they were still a band of brothers making happy noises because there was nothing else they’d rather do. So yes, I was certainly putting the people before the art, or at least letting my (flawed) perception of the (flawed) humans influence my perception of the art.
I got over it. 
Also, does debating and arguing with other fans here on the forum whose opinions differ from your own take away from your fan experience? I often find myself saying “to hell with it all” when I find other fans bashing Yoko.
No.
I’ve always had an ‘agree — fantastic; disagree — oh well’ perspective. If someone says something I agree with 150%, then I am going to mercilessly pound the thank button 
and exclaim how much I agree; if they say something that I disagree with — for instance, if someone ruthlessly slags off George as a mediocre guitarist and a totally insignificant vocalist (I have heard him called both before) — I am going to agree to disagree and go my own way, happily admiring George’s considerable (in my opinion) talents as a guitarist and appreciating his voice for what it is. And then continue to avoid the subject with that person, or allude to it only jokingly.
After all, we’re all entitled to our opinions, aren’t we? We’ve all got our rights… Harold 
Lastly, do you feel when John wrote that “the dream is over,” it was his intention to kill the image of The Beatles? If you buy into an image of The Beatles, do you feel you are at odds with John for doing so?
I have bought into an image of the Beatles at one time or another, and if I were to be totally honest, I still do, on some level. Does this make me ‘at odds’ with John? I suppose it must. Does it really matter, to me personally, if I’m ‘at odds’ with the man behind the music? Not really. I don’t mind being at odds with John, since everyone under the sun — including John — has been at odds with John at some time or another. It’s pretty much the same principle as above. ‘Agree — fantastic; disagree — oh well’. All four of them have said and done things that I don’t agree with, at one time or another — I still love them for it. It doesn’t make them any less fascinating.
I can’t pretend that my appreciation of the Beatles is purely art-based (though knowing a thing or two about music helps to appreciate the art on its own). I also do appreciate trivial things, like their looks and speech and gestures, and not-so-trivial but not-very-related-to-music things, like their personalities and the stories told about them. But if I were to get to the root of why I love this band, it would probably be the feeling that this all creates — the positive vibes I mentioned above; which largely originates from their music, and the long rapport I have with it. I love things that I’ve loved for a long time more deeply than I love things that I just discovered yesterday; the Beatles are kind of my rock. They are the only band I’ve loved with pretty much the same intensity since I was eight. I expect that the myth does have something to do with this abiding love, but I know it started with the music — ‘Hey Bulldog ‘ I believe it was.
Your thoughts?
This is a very interesting thread. Thank you for making it. 
I think the Beatles themselves said it best:
And in the end, the love you take
Is equal to the love you make.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Expert Textpert, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
1 Guest(s)