Customer Reviews

The Beatles and Philosophy: Nothing You Can Think that Can't Be Thunk (Popular Culture and Philosophy)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This wonderful book makes me think of the 1965 George Harrison classic, "Think For Yourself." It is a nice blending of Beatle music and the Beatles' career with philosophical concepts ranging from the basic to the esoteric.

Inveterate Beatle fans will undoubtedly enjoy it. It is an interesting look at the Beatles and how philosophy interplays with their impact on culture as well as their music.

I picked up this book hoping to learn more about the background lives of the Beatles, what could've influenced their songwriting, and philosophy in a sense that meant: how did their music reflect life in the sixties/ what did their songs say about life/ or what kind of messages were the Beatles trying to give, if any? What i got was a book that answered half-heartedly my questions. I didn't know much about the phlosophical ideas of Aristotle or Plato, or any Ancient Greek philosophers for that matter, so reading this book was somewhat difficult.

The connections to the Beatles seemed... on the side. They seemed a lot more like citations than real analysis. Much of the book was classic philosophical ideas followed by two or three lines from a Beatles song or a quick reference to a specific part of one of the Beatles lives that were "cited" hopefully to back up the idea.To me, the authors of this book were just using the Beatles as an excuse to talk about philosophy.

Any book about the Beatles will be enjoyable for me. I can't help but think of their music while I am reading, and that is a good thing. But I did think the philosophical insights, while often on point, were extremely forced. The writers were often forcing Beatles lyrics into their prose as if that would make their philosophical case.

To be honest, much of the philosophy went over my head. I think one would need to be, not just a Beatles junkie (like me) but have been formally trained in philosophy (not like me) to get much out of this book.

If you're looking to read about the Beatles, go to A Day in the Life: The Music and Artistry of the Beatlesby Mark Hertsgaard, which is an astonishing analysis of their work. It's also a far superior book to the recent Beatles biography.

I first purchased this book because of my long-term interest in the music of the Beatles and my own research on the group. In the introduction of practically every essay in this book, the authors state they will address the "music of the Beatles." However, as I soon found out, every article addressed only the LYRICS of songs by the Beatles and not a single essay discussed the MUSIC of the group. This is all the more puzzling as there is an entire branch of philosophy that considers music and other artistic forms: Aesthetics. Lyrics are not the only component to any song, they are only a part of a vastly interesting whole. I was even more disappointed in realizing that one of the editors is a musicologist and should have known better (to use a Beatle phrase). A second disconcerting feature was almost every authors philosophical discussion of every song lyric as "by the Beatles" as a group when true fans and scholars are intimately familiar with which Beatle wrote which lyric. For example, except for perhaps rhyming or grammatical advice, McCartney had nothing to do with the creation of any of Harrison's lyrics--those philosophical thoughts were Harrison's. Yet these author's insist on crediting the entire group for each song lyric. Had they discussed the lyrics as a part of the musical whole, perhaps I could agree that the songs were "by the Beatles" as each member certainly contributed his own musical element (i.e., lead guitar melody and fill, bass guitar countermelody, guitar chord formation, rhythm, etc. not to mention the arranging contributions of producer George Martin and the recording studio techniques of the Abbey Road engineers led by Geoff Emerick). While a few of the essays were well written and interesting and brought out new points of view for me, most impressed me as ill-conceived opinions only and not as well supported as I would expect from professional philosophers. Many authors imply that they knew what the Beatles were thinking when they wrote the lyric, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could know what is in the mind of another. Finally, this review is definitely MY OPINION--you may or may not agree, but in no way am I expecting this to be accepted as the one and only truth, which is to me definitely implied by the authors of "The Beatles and Philosophy".

I originally gave this 2 stars -- It's probably 3. I reconsidered after I realized some of my dislikes were based on it being one author, but it's actually a compilation of authors -- so some of the more annoying factors (such as frequent reference to "Nowhere Man") aren't as distracting as I originally thought. Some songs are used multiple times by different writers to make different philosophical points.

It's insightful as an introduction to classic philosophy topics using Beatles lyrics as a starting point, so it may be of interest to readers who know Fab Four songs quite well and want to get a foothold on common philo-concepts.

The best sections focus on philosophical themes that aren't tied so closely to specific lyrics or the "meaning" of songs.

The Beatles made their musical impact partially because they quickly moved from teen love songs to reflecting the questioning and philosophy of their generation: thus The Beatles and Philosophy is an especially significant, important recommendation for both music history collections and high school to college-level philosophy libraries. It uses the insights of some twenty professional philosophers to analyze the ideas and implications of Beatles lyrics, connections these ideas to both traditional and modern forms of philosophical thought, and thus provides students with far more involving insights than the usual dry philosophy tome.

In general this sort of rumination reminds me mostly of Paul Fussell's funny comment that pretending that many Beatles songs aren't more convincingly written than certain works of Sir Edward Elgar is high snobbery. Well, Fussell clearly didn't mean the great Enigma Variations or the profound Cello Concerto. But maybe some of his quite dull symphonies might make you yearn for the Yellow Submarine in the slow movements especially. But there is some sort of macro-micro aesthetic distinction necessary to clarify the difference. And something similar comes into play in trying to bring philosophy into the matter. Of course for anyone with an ounce of honesty, that ability to distinguish would bring principally a big "don't" to the effort. But the author and editor Michael Baur is a sort of Hegelian specialist, so it seems, and thus the List der Vernunft substitutes for commonsense. That lack of basic commonsense in writing/editing a fatuous book about the Beatles and the intellectual epitome of Western Culture, and about the whatever the heck various overwrought philosophers might somehow believe they understand about this forced abortion of a comparison, is mostly useful to clarify something else. Michael Baur is also, it seems, a big proponent of the latest trend in Catholic academia, both in philosophy and law. Namely, the desire to smuggle in a lack of distinction between medieval Catholic views of Natural Law and those from the modern era. They are part of a campaign to do so, and thus to try to influence jurisprudence on that basis in this country. As I have pointed out before, ironically, even Catholic historians of philosophy in the past, like Copleston (who famously wrangled with Bertrand Russell on similar issues!) did not blithely make the assumption they now make. But "scholars" like Michael Baur have such pure ambition and so little caution that they willy-nilly assert Aquinas wherever they want and with no justification. It is really just magical thinking, or maybe better magical Ideengeschichte. Add to this the de facto totemic status that many of these bizarre scholars grant to pop- culture, and you have a mental quicksand out of which real insight cannot escape. In this strange universe of their devising, somehow, someway, everything, even a Beatles song must be underneath and evocation of the Summa Theologica. That is the implication of their general line of reasoning. If that sounds unlikely, then it is certainly more likely than that philosophers of the modern era were somehow deeply in synch with the Angelic Doctor. It all conjures a freak show of intellectualism, as these scholars seek to absorb and glom onto elements of culture and somehow make them fit their reactionary Catholic desires. One is reminded of the great but awful scene from the cult classic Freaks: "Gooble Gobble ...we accept you....one of us...one of us." Now there is some pop culture profundity to elucidate these acquisitive Thomistic ambitions.