The Beatles and Philosophy by Michael Baur and Steven Baur [Editors]

Perhaps Lennon's pop-song gibberish happens to have a fluke connection with Hindu philosophy, but it seems irresponsible to make intentional bedfellows of the two.

The Beatles and Philosophy

Publisher: Open Court
ISBN: 0812696069
Author: Steven Baur
Price: $17.95
Display Artist: Michael Baur and Steven Baur [Editors]
Length: 301
Formats: Paperback
UK publication date: 2006-12
US publication date: 2006-10

There are so many books written about the Beatles -- too many, probably -- that if we were to make an inventory of every single title, the bad would far outweigh the good. For every indispensable Beatles book (Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions or Bob Spitz's The Beatles) there's a stack of purposeless volumes: the tabloid gossip pieces, the fakebooks, the perplexing digressions into sub-topics of straw-grasping relevance. The Beatles and Philosophy, a collection of essays by philosophy experts (many of them university professors, all of them Beatles fanatics), is a new and sometimes tedious example of the latter. An entry in the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series of books, which is now 25 volumes deep, The Beatles and Philosophy exploits the Fab Four's weakness for populist consciousness-raising by aligning their work to that of Kant, Heidegger, Aristotle, and a host of other great minds that don't necessarily have much to do with the band's music.

A major problem with the collection is that it addresses the Beatles' lyrics only -- understandably, seeing as there's no way to discuss Nietzsche and overdubbing with a straight face -- an approach that inevitably treats the band as a one-dimensional unit. There's no discussion of composition or instrumentation, no examination of arrangements or invention -- this is solely a trace of so-called philosophical themes within the lyrical content. (Regrettably, straight lyrical analysis in pop music is a somewhat shallow trade, for there are so many other parts to a song beyond its words alone.) This leaves the writers groping for faint and coincidental similarities between the Beatles' lyrics and core concepts within existentialism, virtue ethics, Marxism, and Eastern philosophy (the latter is an excusable avenue, given the band's fascination -- George Harrison's, especially -- with Indian music and Hinduism). Sure, Harrison's music and ideology frequently embraced those of Eastern cultures, and John Lennon famously snuck Timothy Leary's Tibetan Book of the Dead-isms into "Tomorrow Never Knows", but the kind of intellectual matchmaking on display in The Beatles and Philosophy is, more often than not, a venture in absurdity.

Take Ronald Lee Zigler's essay, "Realizing It's All Within Yourself", for example. Zigler offers "I Am the Walrus" as an example of a song "in which we can trace the influence of Eastern Philosophy." (What about the influence of nonsense, of childlike expression and the simple sound of certain words in a particular order?) He goes on to claim that the song's opening line -- "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" -- is "the Beatles' most succinct affirmation of the metaphysics of Vedanta which underscores our basic spiritual unity." Well, perhaps Lennon's pop-song gibberish happens to have a fluke connection with Hindu philosophy, but it seems irresponsible to make intentional bedfellows of the two, to saddle such illogical phrasing with greater importance than it may have originally intended to possess.

Many of the book's writers attempt to reason logically with the Beatles' lyrical exploits, but logic doesn't exactly apply to the band's psychedelic-era songwriting. In his essay "Fixing Metaphysical Holes", Rick Mayock soberly examines "Fixing a Hole":

Every time I hear this puzzling lyric I wonder what the riddle could possibly mean. What kind of hole needs fixing, what is the 'rain' that gets in, and how does it prevent the mind from wandering where it will go? ... The lyric seems to suggest that the wandering mind (thinking or consciousness) is possible because we set up the conditions for thinking. We fix the holes, fill the cracks, and paint the rooms of our consciousness. This allows the mind to wander, to be free.

Say what you will about the validity of certain kinds of music criticism, but this philosophy sub-set is a painful breed of interpretation. Scott Calef, in his essay "You Say That You've Got Everything You Want: The Beatles and the Critique of Consumer Culture", discusses the finer points of Rousseau and then plots said points on a classic-rock staple: "... for Rousseau, humans have suffered a loss of pity. In 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', George makes a very similar point, and laments that love is sleeping. We haven't yet awakened to love, or perhaps, we've lost the consciousness of how to love ... This is such a sadness that even his guitar can't keep from crying." What's so striking about the majority of the book's 18 essays -- and, therefore, what makes them all so insufferable -- is that they try so hard to be astoundingly intelligent, to delve into the intricate meanings of every last lyric, and yet there's a sustained ignorance towards the inherent silliness of it all. Is there really a debate about "what exactly [did Paul] mean by the word love?" in "All My Loving"? Does an assessment of Nietzsche really help us to better understand the Beatles' transcendent aspirations?

Steven Baur, one of the book's editors, is the author of one of the better essays in the collection. "You Say You Want a Revolution: Marx and the Beatles" compares and contrasts the band with the German philosopher (who is, as Baur notes, "the only Western philosopher to make the cover of a Beatles album"), and makes a number of insightful points about how social establishments are affected by pop stars and theorists alike. "Marx, dedicated materialist that he was," Baur writes, "would insist that any discussion of the Beatles must necessarily start with a consideration of their real material circumstances." Baur, too, insists on having like parameters set in place, and saves his own essay, at least, from floating off into clouds of intangible analysis.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.