A CELLAR FULL OF NOISE

February 9th marks the fiftieth anniversary of The Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show--which also was their first performance in America.  It was watched by approximately 73 million viewers in over 23 million households,^] or 34 percent of the American population.  Unless you happened to be there in front of a TV set, it is next to impossible to describe the electrical lightening storm that rolled across the nation from those few minutes.   The following day, the critical consensus was mostly negative--objecting to The Beatles' haircuts and much as their music.  The blessed William F Buckley Jr. (an avid devotee of J.S. Bach) summed up his impressions thus:

The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as "anti-popes."

So really, Bill, don't hold back.  Tell us what you really think.

The more mainstream Newsweek Magazine was only slightly more tempered:

 "Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody."

Buckley never really ameliorated his opinion.  The rest of the media came around--if only years after The Beatles were no more.  They're role as principals (villains?) in the tempestuous cultural cascade of the sixties many times overshadowed their music: marijuana, LSD, the dreaded Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and even longer hair thwarted their many attempts to greet the larger public with a friendly face.  It was only with the release of Rubber Soul in 1965 their abilities as songwriters and musicians began to be taken seriously. 

Today, The Beatles are accorded near reverent accord.  Most today were not even born until after 1971 when The Beatles broke up.  All kind of slips out of focus at this remove.  You can scarcely find a baby-boomer who won't claim to have been a fan during those heady years of 1963-1971.  Many in the succeeding generations frequently speak as if they were there at the creation.  Others, while perhaps loving the music, have become sick of listening to the Boomers gushing and waxing poetic over John, Paul, George and Ringo.  Perhaps we boomers should grant we have pushed their forbearance a little too far.

All the same, we loved them.  They were the band which launched thousands of bands all around the world.  If you loved Rock, they were indispensible.  If you were one who suffered under the ravages of adolescence, The Beatles were a friendly face in a world that seemed not to like you very much.  Adults were sharply critical if not condemnatory.  The War loamed and might soon take you into its clutches.  Civil rights battles, racial tensions, riots and burning cities , the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King--all made the world a unsympathetic and hostile place. 

Through all these things, The Beatles were a light in the darkness.  We shared a fantastic belief that music could really change the world into a loving and peaceful place.  Looking back, it was a silly notion.  Still, to an adolescent, one had the sense The Beatles were in your corner.  They got you.  And they liked you.

One can wax poetic and delve into as much cultural anthropology and history as you can wish; but, as true as these investigation may be, it is easy to miss the most salient attractions about The Beatles:  they were fun and the music was phenomenal.

So on this anniversary, I present a short list of thirty of my favorite Beatles tunes.  This list purposely skips over the songs that are almost universally recognized as their best.  Everyone can cite I Want To Hold Your Hand, Help, Yellow Submarine, Something, Here Comes The Sun, Octopus's Garden or Hey Jude right off the top of their heads.  There is no denying they are the very best. My list on the other hand is about those songs which do not come immediately to mind but are also great and memorable these years hence.

Quite unintentionally, it turns out the list is pretty evenly divided between John's compositions and Paul's.  Fifteen from John and fourteen from Paul.  George Harrison's one selection rounds out the list.  Still, all in fun.

So…..

Across the Universe  (Lennon) The most gentle and transcendental song Lennon ever wrote.  First available to most on the Let It Be album.  The better, less gussied up version appears on Anthology 2.

Any Time at All  (Lennon)  Was incomplete when The Beatles took it to studio.  The middle eight is just a series of chords with the intension of adding lyrics latter--which never occurred as time ran out.  The final product was put on A Hard Day's Night in that form.  The result was a pretty rocking frolic.  I particularly like Starr's sharp snaps on the drums.

Back In The U.S.S.R./ Dear Prudence  (McCartney/Lennon)  OK.  A bit of cheat.  These are two separate songs.  But, as the Back In The U.S.S.R. fades almost seamlessly into Dear Prudence on the White Album, it is difficult to think of one without the other.  Back In The U.S.S.R. is a romping combination Elvis/Beach boys send up while Dear Prudence is a deceptively simple song--simple until one tries to do it himself 

Can't Buy Me Love  (McCartney)  Written under pressure to follow up I Want to Hold Your Hand.  One of the examples of the Beatles using a twelve bar blues structure. 

Come Together  (Lennon)  OK.  Not such an unusual choice.  One of the very best Lennon ever wrote.  The first time I heard it I hated it.  Several years later, it had grown on me to the point it one of very favorites.  Everything Lennon wrote afterward pales in comparison.   Chuck Berry heard it and wanted a cut from the royalties.  Details of the settlement have never been disclosed; but ole' Chuck walked away happy.  Still, stolen or not, one cool tune.

Do You Want To Know A Secret  (Lennon)  Written with George Harrison's limited vocal range in mind.  Both Lennon and McCartney thought the song itself wasn't up to their standards.  How wrong can you be?  Sweet and romantic. 

Eight Days A Week  (McCartney) Based on one of Ringo Starr's dogberryisms.  Released as a single only in America.  Lennon thought Eight Days A Week was a lousy song and The Beatles never performed in concert.  Shame.  It was a huge hit in America.  McCartney thought it was just an average song at best and didn't understand its appeal.  Years latter he concluded that, while it was only a middling tune, he supposed it was the performance which carried it over the top.  Just so!

Every Little Thing  (McCartney)  One of the few Beatle occasions when the composer (McCartney in his case) but came to be sung by another Beatle (Lennon here).  McCartney has a reputation an emotional lightweight lyrically.  This is one piece of evidence of deep poignancy. 

Good Day Sunshine  (McCartney)  Influenced by The Lovin' Spoonful: the song's "old-timey vaudevillian feel" partially recalls the Spoonful's hit Daydream, to which "Good Day Sunshine" bears some harmonic resemblance.  Leonard Bernstein (bless his heart) praised the song for its construction.  Those looking for deep thoughts on the meaning of life:  seek ye not here.

Got To Get You Into My Life  (McCartney)  McCartney doin' a Motown thing.  Even during those years in the seventies when Lennon and McCartney were in the middle of their acrimonious, bitter feud, Lennon said he still loved this one. 

Hello, Goodbye  (McCartney)  Just a song of opposites that comes together in a joyous gestalt.  Lennon hated this one; but he was wrong about a lot of things.

Here, There And Everywhere  (McCartney)  Inspired by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds album.  McCartney says this is one of the very favorites.  An ode to his then girlfriend, Jane Asher.

I Saw Her Standing There  (McCartney)  A feverish potboiler with a baseline lifted from Chuck Berry.  George Martin produced the song to create the effect of a live performance.

I Should’a Known Better  (Lennon)  Allegedly inspired by The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.  I'd have to take their word for it; but Dylan never wrote like this.  I like how the rhythm guitar weaves in and out between the lyrics.

I'll Follow The Sun  (McCartney)  A melancholy ballad about an eminent breakup.  Girl seems to take the boy for granted for which he promises he'll leave (someday) if thing go on as they are.  One of those "we have to talk" conversations one usually associates with the female of the species.  Perhaps because it is a reversal of roles which in part explains the attraction of this song.

In My Life   (Lennon)  Even old folk who hated The Beatles loved this song.  Lennon at one his most tender and loving introspections.

It's All Too Much  (Harrison)  Harrison at his psychedelic best.  Clearly Hendrix influenced.  A song to his wife, Patty  (your long blond hair and eyes of blue).  Written about the time of George, Patty, and Eric Clapton love mêlée was just starting.  Even so, if you love the psychedelica of the time, one of the most aggressive and assessable of its kind.  Substantially unlike anything Harrison had done before or afterward.

I've Got A Feeling  (McCartney)  The standout from the "concert on the roof" segment of the film Let It Be aside from Get Back itself.  Love the repeating riff throughout the song.

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds  (Lennon)  Lennon's opulent daydream in nursery rhyme surrealism.  One of the classic songs of all psychedelica. 

Magical Mystery Tour  (McCartney)  A pleasant tune full of surreal effects with a horn section fanfare and overdubs.  As was the want of those years, many thought Magical Mystery Tour was replete with explicit references to drugs and the Tibetan Book of the Dead.  Be that as it may, it is the title track to the much underappreciated album of the same name.

Please Please Me  (Lennon)  Originally Lennon's attempt to write a Roy Orbison song.  The result was a rather dreary, bluesy, slow tempo arrangement.  The final version was strongly shaped by George Martin their producer--thank the Lord.  Written as a follow,up to Love Me Do after Martin suggested they do a cover version of How Do You Do It? which the boys rejected.  In the end, Martin was happier with Please Please Me than How Do You Do It?  Certainly more exciting.

Revolution  (Lennon)  The lowly B-Side to Hey Jude.  The original later known as Revolution #1 was a slower acoustic affair which doesn't hold a candle to its hard rockin' version.  The gnarly guitar sound Lennon found for Revolution was latter copied by thousands of guitarists for years afterward. 

She Loves You  (McCartney)  Personally I'd prefer She Loves You over I Want to Hold Your Hand any day of the week.  The song starts with the refrain, has no bridge, and each chorus pounds the hook into your brain.  Energetic, optimistic, and each refrain ends the last "Yeah" on a flat. 

Tell Me Why  (Lennon)  A closest The Beatles ever came to having a jazzy feel.  Basic structure is simple doo-wop chord changes over a walking bass.  Sincerity through aggression.

The Night Before  (McCartney)  Often regarded as a minor McCartney composition.  Yet it is memorable and a favorite of many from the album Help!. Apparently Paul had a problem with girls who were loving at night and cool to him the next day.  The film has The Beatles recording The Night Before in an open field surrounded by tanks in the shadow of Stonehenge--and why not?

Ticket To Ride  (Lennon)  The chiming guitar lick (stolen from The Byrds) drives this whole track.  Surprisingly (at least at this remove) many in EMI's management and staff thought Ticket To Ride was uncommercial and a bad choice for a single--an opinion seconded by popular music critics.  The public bought it anyway; although Ticket To Ride was pushed off the charts by the Beach Boy's Help Me Rhonda after a mere week.

We Can Work It Out  (McCartney)  Although Paul's song, it's dramatic instinct was largely from Lennon's influence.  Based on Paul's touchy relationship with his girlfriend, Jane Asher, an optimistic and chiding admonition that all can be repaired. 

With A Little Help From My Friends  (Lennon)  The second song on Sgt. Pepper and a staple in Starr's All Stars concerts.  As with everything else from Sgt. Pepper, never released as a single.  Charming as only Ringo could make it.

You're Going To Lose That Girl  (Lennon)  A biting tune in which the singer warns an unnamed other that if he didn't straighten up and treat her right he was bound to lose his girl.  Of course, the singer hopes his advice won't be taken so he can take the girl for himself.  Not an unfamiliar circumstance many a guy has hoped to take advantage.

You've Got To Hide Your Love Away  (Lennon)  Strong Dylan influences.  Done purely as an acoustic and a highlight of the film Help!.  Said to be Lennon's frustration with being told by all concerned that he had to keep his extramarital adventures out of sight.  Lennon not being one to let his marriage to stand between him and the next naked female nonetheless bitterly follows orders in real life as well as in the song.  That is until Yoko Ono comes along.  Of course, the public didn't know that what the song was about at the time.  Most thought it was about loving someone from the wrong side of the tracks--which is how I prefer to hear it.  Reads more like a folksong than rock and roll.  Proved that The Beatles could plays in styles other than Love Me Do.

 

 

 

 

THE TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT

Most of us are familiar with the July 2012 news story in which Chick-fil-A's President Dan Cathy
said that he opposed gay marriage, prompting the boisterous outrage from several sectors with charges of bigotry, homophobia.  There had been no evidence that Chick-fil-A had refused to serve in gays nor discriminated in hiring and promotions--merely that Cathy stated his personal opinion during an interview.  All the commotion reached its apex with the mayor weighted in.  Rahm Emanuel proclaiming "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values".  Emanuel's comments were made along with threats of refusing to zone Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.  To say this put a chill on free speech would be modest.  What executive from other companies would risk similar expressions of their conservative Christian beliefs if they chance run afoul the sensitivities of the influential and powerful and their company's interests be put in jeopardy?

In different circumstances, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's  “extreme conservatives” are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” and “they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are".   Cuomo elaborated by drawing a distinction between "moderate" and "conservative" Republicans":  “figure out if your extreme conservative philosophy can survive in this state and the answer is no.”  Moderates were welcome.  Conservatives were not.  (Conservatives were by definition "extremists" in Cuomo political lexicon.)  Holding views which were conventional as little as ten years and are still common today are now apparently beyond pale.


(Of course, "moderate" Republicans themselves might have something to say about how exactly welcome they feel in Cuomo's political house.)

Governor Cuomo and Mayor Emanuel's examples are straight forward cases of overt bullying; but there are more subtle ways of stifling one's opponents.  The one I have in mind falls under the heading of "he who sets the terms of the debate controls the argument".

 

In the September 2013 issue of The Lutheran, Pastor Peter Marty, in his monthly submission, put forward his own attempt to set the terms for discussing and debating homosexuality and the church: "Talking About Homosexuality".  It might be remembered that his father, Dr. Martin Marty, similarly
put forward his own set of ground rules for discussing abortion in the late 1970's which severely hobbled pro-life advocates while pro-choice advocates would end up surrendering nothing and in effect hold the high ground before discussions would even begin. 

Indeed, if Pastor Marty's own ground rules are allowed to be instituted as guiding principles in "talking about homosexuality", homosexuality and the church simply could not be discussed.  By dissidents from the 2009 Sexuality Social Statement, that is.  The "diversity" planers and promoters  would be able continue on their merry way in the "inclusivity project".  Pastor Marty's article itself can fairly be counted as a soldier in the ELCA's inclusivity crusade.

Marty writes toward a number of points many of which take an interpersonal tack as well as several loose truisms and guilt tripping.  His point can be summarized:

1.)  The word "homosexual" should used sparingly--largely shelved in conversation, 
2.)  People are mostly drawn to the subject of homosexuality because it is about sex--eliciting all sorts of "juicy thoughts.
3.)  Whether one is heterosexual or homosexual tells one little about one's sex life.  To concentrate on another's sexual orientation fails to capture the full sense of his/her personhood.
4.)  We get all excited about another's homosexuality but rarely do we refer to another's heterosexuality in talking about them,
5.)  The modern recognition of "homosexual" as a separate type of human being is relatively recent one--one which the writers of both the Old and New Testaments had no concept.  Neither in Greek or Hebrew had a word for "homosexual".  The category or classification we refer to as "homosexuality" didn't exist in the time of the Biblical writers.
6.)  Where the Bible does refer to the lusting or exploitative use of sex by both same or "differently" gendered people has nothing to do with the loving, lasting and caring (shall we say wholesome) relationships two homosexuals can share with each other.
7.)  Homosexuals are living, breathing human beings no less than heterosexuals.  To focus only on their sexual orientation drains the full personhood from that individual.  One shouldn't treat a homosexual that way--a way we don't treat heterosexuals.

Marty then concludes:

"So keep recalling your connection to real people with real lives.  If everything God created is good, and God created each of us, how would a gay (or straight) person be anything more than what God created him or her to be?"

It is difficult to know where to begin.  Certainly, any homosexual (as with all men and women) should be treated with generosity and respect.  Just as certain, if one follows Marty's "rules", it would be next to impossible to have frank discussions about the moral status of same-sex "sensual docking procedures.  Perhaps for Marty that is just the point and such would suit him just fine.  Under such restraints, the ELCA leadership would be relieved to have the contested moral issue off their backs.  For traditionalists the bottom line is that it is OK to have moral reservations concerning homosexual erotic behavior, just don't give voice to them.

Marty's last sentence presents as obvious and mere common sense what is in reality controversial.  It is simply not true that everything that exists God created as good.  God at the end of the seven days of creation did behold it and said it was good.  But what was to follow was the Fall and with the Fall not only humanity separated from God but all creation itself was damaged and it became not as He intended .  Those who fall back on the argument on the goodness of creation are left with a myriad of existential evils to explain. 

This gets into the contentious subject of theodicy about which much ink has been spilled and it is doubtful Pastor Marty would have much to add in the way of justifying God's ways.  (Nor I for that matter.)  Is spina bifita intended by God?  (Worldwide, one out of five hundred individuals suffer from this congenial disorder.) Disease in general?  Blindness and deafness?   Then there are the mental disorders which torcher hundreds of thousands at any given time.   One in twenty men and women are sociopaths.  One in a hundred are psychopaths.  Depressions of unknown origin plague the lives of many--some to suffer such darkness a lifetime--some to prefer death over the hell of living another day.   Are these brought about by the intentionality of God?  What about tornados and earthquakes which kill thousands each year?  Yes, Pastor Marty would have a lot of explaining to do.

Of course, the presence of existential evil in and of itself does not establish the moral nature of homosexuality.  What the thorny question of God's divine intention does is rule out any argument which posits that goodness can be inferred from mere existence.  From this it should also be apparent that any genetic basis for homosexuality proves nothing.

Many believe that homosexuality is built into the DNA of gay men and women.  As such it is argued means that a genetic origin of homosexuality means that it is perfectly normal and natural.  But this assertion actually begs the question.  Many studies have been done and to date the "gay gene" or complex of genes remains elusive.   Many doubt that such a gene exists.  But, for the moment, let us assume that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.  It does not prove what Pastor Marty and others think it does.   What remains is the difficulty in knowing whether such a genetic formation is an expression of creation's goodness--or is it a sign of creation's brokenness?

Are homosexuals as God intended them to be: homosexual?  Pastor Marty seems to think they are; but he does nothing to convince us of this.

We see increasingly with the introduction of genetics and neuroscience into the mix to explain human behavior with the overt suggestion, the possibility it seems, that our choices are not made by ourselves.  Our makeup commands we what it demands or we refuse at our peril.  But the true story is that our lives are not reducible to these forces acting upon us.  We know at a basic level that there are others who have the same circumstances in play (or very similar) and do not act as their makeup insists.  There are choices made in the opposite direction--refusing to follow through our impulses.  That others make those choices proves that our actions are not predestined by our genes or our upbringing or our culture--even when we are told that we are entitled to the satisfaction of what we desire most.

Most homosexuals will tell you that they didn't wake up one morning a decide to be gay.  There is every reason to take them at their word.  Some radical lesbians maintain that women can choose be gay as an act out of their personal autonomy--but these are a distinct minority.  It seems far more likely to me that, instead of a singular act of choice, one becomes homosexual from a long series of many choices and experiences--many if not most unconscious ones.   By this I am saying nothing more than how each of us come to be what we are in life--whether sexually or in a host of other areas having nothing to do the sexuality.  For most of us, how we came to be who we are and what sort of person we are will always be shrouded in mystery.  As Neil Young sang in  See The Sky About To Rain:

                                                Some are bound for happiness. 
                                                Some are bound for glory. 
                                                Some are bound to live with less. 
                                               Who can tell your story?

What Pastor Marty wants is to shut down discussion and for the entire Church to come to a de facto final resolution--putting the whole unpleasant business behind us and pushing traditionalists to the very margins of the Church.  Pastor Marty's handling of the Biblical issues also leaves much to be desired and certainly can be contested.  (However one comes down in interpretation, the fact remains that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament say anything positive about homosexual acts.)  There is much left to be sorted out.  Much to put forth and those answered.  But we will be doing the Church no favors by curtailing dialog on our differences.