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

If you do not even attempt to demonstrate why the music is sinful entirely of itself then you have failed to judge it on it's own merits.

If When I'm Sixty-four is sinful, then it is sinful regardless of who wrote and recorded it, or whether or not I am aware of who wrote and recorded it. </font>[/QUOTE]I never said the music was sinful. I just disagreed that it was the greatest.

 

OK, just for the fun of it I will address the Beatles song you suggest: “Octopus's Garden.” This song was written in 1969 at the height of the Beatles’ drug drenched genius. It was written by Ringo Starr, inspired apparently by a conversation he had with a sea captain who told him a great deal about the creatures and how they build gardens on the sea bed. (Whether they do or not, I do not know.)

As a Christian, and as a Baptist I believe, as I hope you do, that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. It should govern our lives including our musical leanings.

Colossians 3:15-17 reads “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.”

Here I find eight governing principles pertaining to my music.

1. My music ought not to destroy peace in my heart: “Let the peace of God rule in your hearts.” Octopus's Garden does nothing for the peace of God in my heart - instead it commends its listener’s to mere escapism.

[2. My music should not be a source of discord or division: “To the which also ye are called in one body.” That the Beatles’ music did create disharmony among believers is evident by the response of conservative Christian to them at the time, and by the clear division created by this thread.

3. My music shall not cause ingratitude: “Be ye thankful.” What does Octopus's Garden make me thankful for?

4. My music shall accord with God’s Word: How does Octopus's Garden reinforce any aspect of God’s truth. It does not glorify him as Lord, Creator, Saviour, Sovereign or anything else. It is a bankrupt song.

5. My Music well do more than provide cheap answers to the problems of life: “Teaching and admonishing.” This song advocates youthful escapism from authority of any and every kind “No one there to tell us what to do.”

6. My music shall have eternal value: As in “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Can you really imagine this song having eternal qualities. It is a nonsense song.

7. My music shall not destroy grace in my heart: “Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” The song may not destroy grace in my heart, but it does little to encourage its growth.

8. My music shall be sung in the name of the Lord.“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” Can we really sing “Octopus's Garden” in the name of Jesus and to the glory of God?

OK its not “Highway to Hell,” but its hardly genius either. It is a trite piece of dumbed down music, that does nothing to strengthen the human spirit, or reveal the writers as creatures made in the image of God.

Bach famously said “All music should have no other end & aim than the glory of God and the soul’s refreshment: where this is not remembered there is no real music but only a devilish hub-bub.” IMctopus's Garden falls into the hub-bub category.

 

Travelsong I understand what you are trying to
convey and the big picture.

As for mr. 1611 his favorite group is the

"The Funeral Dirge 5"

still waiting for their greatest hits cd.

people will believe what they believe and be
fans of this or that and that is their right.

but liking and admiring the process of music
that came from the creative minds of the
Fab Four is no litmus test for anything you are
saved no buts attached, period , and if you
are a christian who listens to the beatles
you are saved...if you listen to them the next
day ..still saved! the next day..still saved.

And when you take that great big elevator
into the sky one day and the elevator music
happens to be "Love me do" you are really saved!

 

Certainly Clapton and Duane Allman and their contemporaries were gifted virtuosos, but the Beatles pushed the limits of what could be done with music. Most artists are content to milk an idea or melody. But take a song like Happiness is a warm Gun you'll see 3 distinct, complete transitions withing 2 minutes and 40 seconds in just one perfectly cohesive song structure.</font>[/QUOTE]May I add to that, "Martha, My Dear"?

 

..

 

Yep they definitely seemed gifted in blasphemy, and Alistair Crowley's philosophy of "Do what thou wilt," Crowley appeared as one of their admired figures on the sleeve of the Sgt Pepper's album.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, in all fairness to them, the people on the album cover weren't necessarily people with whom the band was enamored, but simply people who were famous or infamous for one reason or another.

The cover was designed by artist, Peter Blake, and the people on it were of his own choosing, not the Beatles.

Interesting fact: Jesus was originally supposed to have been on the cover but was replaced by Hank Williams, out of fear of further alienating Christians.

Good music is good music.

Personally, I'm more appalled that Harrison ripped off "He's So Fine" for the melody of the track.

 

...Pete Best

...Stu Sutcliffe

...Satan

Maybe they could all have a reunion.

Does anyone else remember the Saturday Night Live skit where Eddie Murphy played the saxaphone player who was kicked out of the band, just before they hit big on Ed Sullivan, so that Paul and John could steal his songs?

"I'm telin' you, man, the original words to that song was, 'She Loves You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Man!"

But you'll also find great stories of hope and of God's goodness.

 

So far, nobody on your side has judged the music on it's own merits.

You've judged it because you didn't like the album cover. You've judged it because you didn't like a John Lennon quote that was taken out of context. You've judged it because you don't like the changes in societal norms that happened around the same time.

But in four pages, now, I haven't seen one of you discuss the music, itself.

I don't think anyone has told you you were wrong because you don't like their music.

I think he, as am I, is concerned that you're judging the music on everything but the music.

 

OK. I went to this site and, being a huge Brian Wilson fan, looked at their "expose" on him.

They claim that he is demonically possessed because he hears voices in his head.

Is there anyone left on this planet besides these guys who doesn't know that Brian Wilson suffers from schizophrenia and general disassociative disorder?

How cruel must they be to slander and ridicule someone who has courageously battled mental illness and turned so much sorrow into so much joy, in spite of his illness?

As someone with a history of mental illness in my family and who has battled depression and anxiety attacks, myself, I'm deeply offended, as anyone with a shred of human decency should be, that they would say these things.

What's next? Are they going to go after people with cancer?

The try to complete this charade by using quotes from the book, "Wouldn't It Be Nice: The Autobiography of Brian Wilson".

What they don't tell you is that the book was written without Wilson's knowledge and that there were several lawsuits over the book.

It is now generally considered to be a fraud.

They go on to say that the Beach Boys were heavily influenced by the music of Charles Manson, but they neglect to tell you that Manson was only tenuously conected to the band and that he was in prison during their peak creative years, not making music.

The video tried to say that Brian Wilson is demon possessed because the BeachBoys recorded one of Manson's songs but, again, they conveniently forget to tell you that the album is not a studio album produced by Brian, but a compilation put together of bits and pieces of other albums in order to fulfil a contractual obligation to Capital Records.

What they conveniently forget to tell you is that the only Beach Boy who is involved with the song at all is Dennis.

No offense, but if this is the best source you can come up with, then it's no wonder that nobody takes the anti-rock crowd seriously.

 

Actually, the Beatles are on record as saying the people on the cover of that album are there, because they are people they admired.

 

I am sure, being a Beatles fan you understand very well - Anyone can read the lyrics and see where Starr was going with the song, and this is how the song is understood by Beatles devotees.

On that I think we are agreed, but it is not the testimony of wisdom - Proverbs 9:7-12

It celebrates neither.

Well, there goes the book of psalms, among many other Scriptures

It must be a fabrication I received from music critics anaylzing Beatles' songs, because that is what they say, and they are Beatles fans. Sorry Travelsong, you are being evasive. You asked us to critique the song, and when someone does you begin evading the issues.

If we make the Beatles our standard we will be living in mud huts. I anticipate the Beatles' recordings will be burnt up as the wood hay and stubble they are.

Me too, this song isn't any of those.

Now you are being plain silly.

None that you would enjoy, thats for sure.

This thread is going nowhere. I have made my point. I have applied Scripture - you have not, I have considered the lifestyle of the singers, a matter of no concern to you, and now I have critiqued the song you requested, it falls way short of God's glorious standards for good music, but you will cling to it anyway. I know I am never going to persuade you anyway, so taking the adivice of Solomon, I will no longer "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:5). See ya!

 

"No offense, but if this is the best source you can come up with, then it's no wonder that nobody takes the anti-rock crowd seriously."

None taken, I just provided the link because it was on subject... not worried about the opinion of men (ps.118:8). However, I would suggest sending your comments to [email protected]

 

I actually prefer bands who actually had talent like Chicago, Yes, Journey, EWF, etc...

The Beatles were okay, but their time has come and gone.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Actually, the Beatles are on record as saying the people on the cover of that album are there, because they are people they admired. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes and no.

The only two Beatles who actually contributed to the album cover were George, who wanted Eastern spiritual leaders, and John, who wanted Jesus, Ghandi, and Hitler.

Peter Blake filled in the rest.

 

I thought about that when I saw their cruelty toward Brian, but then I read their responses to other people who wrote them with concerns, and I just don't see the point.

Like the anti-rockers here, and like I was when I was an anti-rocker, they're more committed to their ideology than they are to the truth.


Now Playing: The Band - "Music From Big Pink"