Friday, January 10, 2014

Could I be in trouble with the Holy Office of Online Inquisitors because my blog's title is a sort of homage to the Beatles?



Or, Taylor Marshal discovers the Beatles...

The Sgt. Pepper Album was released in 1966 and probably from the first moment of release, critics began trying to figure out what it meant - from the iconography of the cover to WDTLRS - what do the lyrics really say.  (Maybe it would be easier if they had been in Latin?)

I'm being facetious of course, although I find it surprising that anyone is vetting Beatles covers so closely today - especially since Beatles fans and critics pretty much had it figured out way back when.  The fact that figures on the Sgt. Pepper cover have dark histories and some are even gay and others were into the occult and evil secularists, and, and, the cover has a creepy look too - how is this news?

The British rock scene was heavily into drugs and the occult - just like the United States rock scene.  Hippies!  Evil hippies were all doped up and into astrology and all sorts of transcendental meds!  I even dabbled in the occult - learned how to read Tarot cards, curiously searched into the bizarre, sick life of Aliester Crowley ... Until my conversion, which to some extent, came about under the influence of Jesus Christ Superstar and Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven'.  Giving up drugs culminated in an encounter with the Resurrected Christ - hours after attending a Transcendental Meditation seminar.

God definitely draws good out of evil.

I'm not trying to defend the Beatles - the group has thrived on such controversy - and frankly, few people care.  Pop culture at the time - just as it is today - was steeped in evil and licentiousness.  In fact, these days it has never before been more blatant.  Interestingly, way back when, it was the Stones who were the real bad boys of rock.  They were the ones who sang about the Devil.  Yet even someone as simple as good Catholic school girl Leslie Gore sang about drugs - "Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows" - tell me she wasn't promoting acid and gay equality.  Well, maybe not - but see how I can make sunshine synonymous with orange sunshine acid, and lollipops with all sorts of blotter acid tabs and rainbows with all things gay?

That said - the one good point Dr. Marshall makes is that the banned Butcher cover for the Beatles Yesterday and Today album had something to do with abortion.  I noted the same thing in earlier posts on my blog.  Dr. Marshall suggested the Beatles were dressed in doctor's coats and the intent of the shoot was to promote abortion.  (Not doctors or lab coats - butcher coats.)  I never believed the cover was designed with that intention - I considered that it was more or less a bizarre protest against war.  Dr. Marshall noted that the debate over legalization of abortion was a major story at the time, and therefore the album cover may have been promoting abortion.

Clearly, a grizzly album cover such as the butcher cover would never be acceptable to a culture which had been traditionally opposed to abortion.  There is no way it would have been a positive image to promote abortion.  The fact that the Beatles were dressed as butchers suggests to me - if indeed the promotion of legalized abortion had been the intent - the butcher cover could only have been intended to show the horrors of so called 'back alley butchers' who performed botched abortions, killing both the infant and sometimes the mother.  If that was the case, the Beatles would have been promoting legalized abortion.  Something many naive and deluded young people favored.  Fact is, the butcher cover offended many at the time, and the album was recalled and papered over and reissued; subsequent releases had the new cover.

The world was deceived (as it is now) into believing abortion should be legal, safe and clinical.  If anything - the Beatles cover demonstrated there is little difference between legal abortion and illegal abortion - both dismember and kill.  Way back when I thought the fetus was just tissue - I also believed it was a woman's choice.  I have since changed.  Perhaps the Beatles have as well.  Perhaps not.

The mission of pop culture and fashion is to make evil palatable and attractive.  The Beatles songs were of the time - they defined the time, yet so well composed, they have become classic and can be interpreted in many ways.  Art is like that.  In the Middle Ages, Troubadours did the pretty much the same thing.  In Teresa of Avila's time, popular culture offered romantic novels and songs, which were likewise considered to be a corruption of morals.  Likewise in the mid-nineteenth century the music of Strauss was regarded as a threat to morality.

"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."

In our day there is concerted evil in pop culture, manufactured and marketed to effect change in politics, civil law, and morality.  Mass media is the portal.  Marketing and advertising, pop music, film, television, talk radio, books, magazines, blogs, web sites, Disney, American Idol, fashion, retail, Government ... it is pervasive and imminent, and we all partake in it at one time or another.
"Where does this poisonous harm fail to reach? And who fails to drink little or much from the golden chalice of the Babylonian woman of the Apocalypse? ...There is hardly anyone of high rank or low, saint or sinner, who does not drink of her wine, subjecting his heart somewhat. For as pointed out in Revelation 17:2-4, all the kings of the earth were inebriated with the wine of her prostitution. She reaches out to all states, even the supreme and illustrious state of the priesthood, by setting her abominable cup in the holy place, as Daniel asserts [Dn. 9:27], and she hardly leaves a strong man who has not drunk a small or large quantity of wine from her chalice..." - Ascent III, 22:4


20 comments:

  1. Taylor Marshall is absolutely right on this one. I am old enough to remember the Beatles when they were first on the Ed Sullivan show, and I remember how EVERYTHING seemed to change after that. It was because of the Beatles that so many in our generation got involved in drugs and the occult. Don't get me wrong. I loved the Beatles and their music. But I've learned a few things since then, and I realize just how diabolical they really were.

    There is nothing in this world that we can trust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree that Taylor Marshall gets it right in laying all the blame on the Beatles and projecting the promotion of abortion as one of their goals.

      He's overstating it, he's reading too much into their phenomena. As people like to say, at best the Beatles may have been 'useful idiots' in some respect - they were initially rather naive. Mao and Marxism were basic influences in progressive politics and beat culture at the time - it's not such earth shaking news, and certainly not realistically to be blamed on one rock group. Revolutionary ideology was pervasive in intellectual circles and underground press.

      Academia, educators and students soon promulgated revolutionary ideas and ideals - post Beatle music became more deliberate and mind altering than what the Beatles produced. It's a far bigger landscape than what Marshal quips about.

      Likewise the onslaught of the so-called British 'invasion' of trend and fashion was a bigger machine than the Beatles.

      The real problem with pop media is taking place right now and in our times - today - not the pop scene of the '60's-'70's.

      If you want to trace the dark history of pop/rock, and moral degradation, you have to go down to the ghettos of the depression, and before that to the plantations where negroes were enslaved and exploited - raped; families split apart resulting in incest and so on - that's the real nitty gritty. They sang about it. Kids like the Beatles picked up on it as it progressed from blues into rock and roll and rhythm and blues. The ills of the 20th century and today have deeper roots than the Beatles and the 1960's.

      Delete
    2. Realistically sb realistic - I think faster than I can write.

      Oh, and I'm not blaming slavery. Marge Sanger and her friends at Planned Parenthood had a bigger effect on the sexual revolution and culture than did the Beatles.

      Delete
  2. I’m old enough to have seen the RS as a bottom-of-the-bill act with the Everley Bros and Dionne Warwick topping the show.

    It wasn’t the RS who made headlines then because of drug abuse but one half of the EB who arrived at Heathrow only to be sent back to the States because he was unfit to tour. The late Phil Everley carried on the tour doubling up with one his band members. Brilliant!

    Stones had just released cover version of C’mon, and were kitted out in tweed jackets and blue jeans. Also privileged to see Beatles honour a gig at a local dance hall after releasing Love Me Do. Place was heaving and the guys were wearing brown collarless suits. No drugs, no booze. Just a great night.

    Beatles, or any band, imo, had no influence on anyone taking drugs. People took drugs, did booze only if they wanted to.

    I lived through it all and never did drugs, although I was partial to Black Velvet (draught Guinness and cider - could never afford the champagne mix.)

    And I’ll never forget standing within a yard of Jim Hendrix’s amp at a gig at Manchester Uni. Closest I ever came to that experience again was at a soundcheck for ZZ Top at the Paris Bercy years later. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rock on! Seriously, you are right - California and the Village in NYC had all of that stuff going on. And yes, rock'n'roll - Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee, Elvis made their contributions to the 'corruption' of minors.

      Delete
    2. I also got ahead of you in my comment. Indeed when the Beatles debuted on Ed Sullivan, they were pretty innocent, clean cut guys - the long hair was the most radical thing about them. And boys weren't screaming their lings out - just the girls - in the same way they did for Elvis and Frank Sinatra before them.

      Delete
  3. Hi Terry,
    In answer to your question on my new blog, none of them.

    Peace.
    Jason (Ascending Mt. Carmel)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember I pretty much warned you when I first began reading you - I urged you to stay pure. Eventually you will probably face the same discontent with the Orthodox. I keep you in my prayers.

      Delete
  4. Terry, what surprised me about his post is how he and some of the commentors overlooked the real reason the "Butcher Cover" was created: it was a statement by the Beatles to Capitol Records. "These records are our babies. Stop chopping them up to make more money. We didn't say you could do that." (The record it came from was put together, Frankenstein-like, from songs chopped from three different British releases, making a fourth record, meaning more $$$ for Capitol, of course.)

    The Beatles got caught up in the craziness of the times. None of them, even Lennon, were evil. Misguided and young, but not evil.

    I see where he drew that analogy from, but that doesn't mean people should go and burn their Beatles records, after Lennon's infamous Jesus comment. Such stuff doesn't pose a danger to souls. I mean, look at the dissolute lives of many of the great 18th and 19th century composers. Does that mean we should put all of their stunning works in the dustbin of history? How hard is it to separate the beauty of these songs from their HUMAN creators? That's what annoyed me about the article; some of the conclusions and some of the posters who jumped on the bandwagon showed poor discernment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had completely forgotten that point as regards the record industry in the U.S. until someone on Marshall's post pointed that out.

      Of course now they have testimony of a fundamentalist sort from a video on how the Beatles sold their souls to the devil. Not sure if you noticed that one in the post comments. Taylor Marshall said he will never listen to the Beatles again.

      Delete
  5. I had forgotten the Beatles made the cover to protest their albums being butchered in the American market.I'm thinking the cover was only released in America but I'm not sure. I also thought John Lennon said it had something to do with protesting the war in Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Originally it was explained as a protest of war. I also forgot it was a reproach against the American record industry - and I believe it was released only in the U.S..

      Delete
  6. Forgot to mention... I published a book for someone a few years back. He was a massive Beatles fan and collector. The book was about his career as a secretary of a soccer club. He wanted the jacket to reflect his passion for the Beatles. Cover shows only three figures. Fourth figure appears on the flap inside. Can be viewed at this link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0946866406/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_dav

    ReplyDelete
  7. FYI: If you are interested in the video series linked to on Taylor Marshall 's blog, go here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVs4VugUI

    It's rather convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, I grew up listening to the Beatles ... My dad was a huge fan. I still love them but I tend not to listen to them too much anymore. I hardly ever listen to the Stones, dunno why. The other big ones I lived were Zeppelin and the Who, who I still listen to occasionally.

    This article sounds ridiculous. I'm not gonna read it, because if the author is completely ignoring the stated and entirely plausible purpose of the "butcher cover", then I believe it is written in bad faith.

    As for Strauss -- yes, and Wagner, and Tchaikovsky, etc. And it goes even further back. The point is, it's a dangerous game because sooner or later you'd have to reject EVERY type of music, including classical, because *someone* thought it degraded morals at the time.

    I think the difference is that much music today cannot be construed in an innocent fashion. Rock stars of precious decades were often scumbags in their personal lives, ditto for jazz and classical artists and composers. But it's possibly to enjoy their music without adhering to that, and the lyrics are often innocent enough. Today though, when you have top-40 hits blatantly and graphically promoting promiscuous sex, it's hard to see how angle could ever take it innocently.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, I grew up listening to the Beatles ... My dad was a huge fan. I still love them but I tend not to listen to them too much anymore. I hardly ever listen to the Stones, dunno why. The other big ones I lived were Zeppelin and the Who, who I still listen to occasionally.

    This article sounds ridiculous. I'm not gonna read it, because if the author is completely ignoring the stated and entirely plausible purpose of the "butcher cover", then I believe it is written in bad faith.

    As for Strauss -- yes, and Wagner, and Tchaikovsky, etc. And it goes even further back. The point is, it's a dangerous game because sooner or later you'd have to reject EVERY type of music, including classical, because *someone* thought it degraded morals at the time.

    I think the difference is that much music today cannot be construed in an innocent fashion. Rock stars of precious decades were often scumbags in their personal lives, ditto for jazz and classical artists and composers. But it's possibly to enjoy their music without adhering to that, and the lyrics are often innocent enough. Today though, when you have top-40 hits blatantly and graphically promoting promiscuous sex, it's hard to see how angle could ever take it innocently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Merc - thanks for adding that.

      Delete
  10. Only one conspiracy theory is allowed. That particular album cover has already been claimed by the Paul-is-dead theory, a secret message about Paul's gruesome death in a car accident.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.